User talk:Cunard/Archive 6: Difference between revisions

BTW, you cited UP#GAMES. Note that it does allow games where Wikipedians who also do serious edits can play. It's the ones where users without or with very little other edits that are 'outlawed'. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User pages#Excessive unrelated content (WP:UP#GAMES) refers to "Writings, information, discussions, and activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals", particularly "[g]ames, roleplaying sessions, secret pages, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia", particularly if they involve people who are not active participants in the project." This does not condone Wikipedians with serious edits who use Wikipedia as a web host or as a game. Why should established editors who violate policy be treated differently from less serious editors who violate policy? I believe that all editors are equal and should be treated equally when they violate policy. Note that I when I refer to "all editors", I am excluding administrators because they are, of course, immune from the policies and guidelines which we inferior editors must follow. They can wield the block, delete, and protect buttons willy nilly while we inferiors cower in fear. ;) Cunard (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Cunard, I am afraid I must disagree. While Wikipedia is not a place for MySpacey edits, however, as Jimbo puts it, Anything that builds a spirit of friendliness and co-operation and helps people get to know each other as human beings seems to me a good thing. If hidden pages can help Wikipedians know each other better, and, as stated in the DoF, keep Wikipedians here, then it is a good thing because often the editors stay to do good edits. However, if a hidden page game concerns only editors that have little or no other edits, it means that they are using Wikipedia SOLELY as a MySpace tool, which is of course unacceptable. As sockpuppetry is unacceptable in Wikipedia, and causes confusion even when not abused, setting up multiple accounts for the sake of hiding pages in 2 userspaces must not be allowed. even if the editor has made 100000000000 good-faith edits, and is an admin, crat, and everything else. Kayau Voting IS evil 00:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The encyclopedia would be bettered if editors were to build a spirit of collaboration in the mainspace instead of handing out barnstars and finding secret pages in the userspace. I'm afraid that I don't hold double standards when it comes to inappropriate use of the userspace. Experienced editors and novice ones should be held accountable to the same standards. We will have to agree to disagree. Cunard (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Cunard, please note the difference between novice editors and WikiPuppies. Novice editors are editors that do make serious contributions to Wikipedia; WikiPuppies don't. BTW, is that why you've never made a userpage? (Just curious.) Kayau Voting IS evil 09:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify what you mean by "is that why you've never made a userpage?" (mine emphasized) Cunard (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be off-topic, never mind. But what I want to stress is, novice editors should be allowed to make hidden pages as long as it does not mean eating into too much of their time. However, WikiPuppies do nothing else, so theirs should not be encouraged and should be deleted. Kayau Voting IS evil 03:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand your viewpoint but am still of the opinion that secret pages are unacceptable for an enyclopedia. I ask again what you meant by the question above. Cunard (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

By 'that' I mean your opposition towards Wikipedians doing non-Wikipedia-related things in the userspace. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying.

I don't have a userpage for several reasons but am now reconsidering. First, if I had a userpage, I'd probably update my edit count every five edits I make so that 20% of my edits would be of me updating my userpage. What a great way to get up my edit count! Then, instead of slaving away on Middlesex (novel), I would be able to spend endless hours searching for the "right" userboxes that describe who I am. I would also be able to include hidden links to MY secret page, as well as to a couple "false" ones. Finally, I would be able to join the clique of elite editors who possess secret pages. Oh, I'd have to withdraw all my MfDs so that I wouldn't be proclaimed as a hypocrite. I also need to give vandals two playgrounds. My talk page is not enough for their amusement. What do you think? ;) Cunard (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Userspace is not all that gloomy, Cunard. And there is no need to get to sarcasm. I dare say more than half of the users who are currently active have a userpage. (I'm counting the cases where the userpage redirects to the talk page. That's something you could consider.) Hidden pages are not necessary, and you don't have to have UBXes. Too many of 'em would mean your userpage running too slow, after all. You just need to tell everybody else about your Wikipedian life, ie how you started and what you usually do, and that's about it all to have a good userpage. Kayau Voting IS evil 04:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ha! I thought so!

See this? I thought I had the pages deleted before, and I was right! How'd they get back, though? Did I recreate them? I didn't think I did... ALI ^{nom nom} 20:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not know if you recreated them because as a non-admin, I cannot view deleted edits. You'll have to ask an admin to find out. Thank you for requesting deletion of the page. Best, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - Fulton–Taylor House, Fulton-Taylor House:

I didn't mean to be insulting or condescending. I just meant to let you know that I had removed the speedy. When I saw the redirect to a page that existed, I thought I should check whether the topic was notable, and since it was, I created a stub at the redirect's target – not that easily, since I don't know much about Oregon. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

While I thank you for notifying me of the declined speedy, I don't think the message telling me to review the speedy criteria was very appropriate. The speedy tag was correct in the first place and only became inaccurate after your creation. Perhaps you could have left a personalized message explaining that the redirect no longer applied due to your creation of Fulton–Taylor House. I, as well as other editors, are more responsive to personalized messages than templates which contain words/sentences that are inapplicable to the circumstance. This is just a little advice that you probably already know.

Thank you for creating the article, though. Most would have deleted the redirect instead of expanding Wikipedia's knowledge. I am frequently impressed by the work you do rescuing articles from CAT:CSD and WP:AFD. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

An example where a personalized message was more helpful than a template is at User talk:74.178.230.17. Cunard (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Your Sockpuppeting Case Against Me

I apologize in advance for anyhting I might say to anger you. I have just served a two week suspension from Wikipedia that YOU caused. I helped you find the proper source for Miranda Uhl's article and I thought that was all behind us. The next thing I know, I'm banned form Wikipedia for being a sockpuppet. I then try to defend myself and I am called a liar and totally disregarded. Eventually even my right to defend myself is taken away from me and I am forced to sit and wait out my suspension with my mouth gagged! This all stems from you. I am not here to insult you or to scream at you but I would like to ask a favor of you. Next time you see what might be a sockpuppeting case, ask those involved for an explanation before putting them at the mercy of the fascist administrators that I have met over the past two weeks. Thank you.--Johncoracing48 (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I advise you not to continue editing in this fashion. More name-calling and comparing admins to Nazis will result in an indefinite block. Cunard (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Middlesex

Hello, Cunard, I'm afraid I don't have time for another read-through/peer review. I can quickly say, however, that you need to add initial publication info to the "Background and publication" section. "Middlesex was published on October 7, 2002 by..." etc. Hope this helps, and sorry I can't do more at the moment, María (habla conmigo) 12:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That's all right. The help you have provided in your two read-throughs is very valuable. I'll add the initial publication info and put Middlesex through a GA review to get more feedback before I take it to FAC. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion regarding deletion of page

Dear Sir / Madam,

I wrote this page on a great personality who served in army medical core and was awarded with Tamgha-i-Khidmat (medal for good services) from Government of Pakistan. He was a sufi saint and guide of people especially young generation towards spiritual teachings. He has many followers from ordinary people to scholars from different subjects. I just wrote a page on Wikipedia first and a full team is busy in collecting information about his life and welfare works to develop a website. Soon this web site will be available online. We also working to upload his video addresses on web.

You can visit his group on Facebook. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=384781618645

His fans page on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sufi-Muhammad-Zia-ul-Haq-Zia/353414497930

If any further information you need then please tell me.

Thanks & Regards,

Mian Adnan —Preceding unsigned comment added by MianAdnanZia (talk • contribs) 10:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Mian. Do you have any reliable sources that verify Mian Muhammad Zia ul Haq Zia's existence? By reliable sources, I mean books, as well as articles in newspapers or magazines. Facebook is not a reliable source because it has not received fact-checking and/or a peer review. If you can locate a reliable source about him (it does not need to be online), and if you include the source in the article, I will withdraw my deletion nomination. Best, Cunard (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Re:GA review for Middlesex (novel)

I'm actually in the middle of my first read as we speak. Sorry I didn't get started sooner, I thought I could have began the review a day or two earlier but I got caught up in some other things. Already I can tell you that the article seems to be in good shape. I'm sure I'll have some comments and suggestions, but I'm confident any and all can be addressed easily. And fortunately, I just read (and enjoyed) this novel myself for the first time about one month ago, so it's all fresh in my head. — Hun ter Ka hn 05:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at the article. You don't need to apologize for the delay; as long as you provide a good review for this lovely novel, I'll overlook that. ;) Middlesex (novel) is the first article I've taken to WP:GAN and will be the first article I take to FAC, so I would greatly appreciate it if you would provide advice about how it would fare at FAC. Cunard (talk) 05:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've left my initial comments here. I'm going to take another look at it (probably tomorrow) focusing primarily on the sources. As I said, none of these problems are insurmountable, and in fact almost all are very easy and I'm confident can be addressed quickly. (Your work is especially impressive considering it's your first GAN. Well done!) — Hun ter Ka hn 05:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, those are great comments so I forgive you for the delay. Thank you for the kind words of encouragement. Cunard (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Anne Aghion

Just wanted to let you know that I hadn't heard anything back yet but did just poke back so hopefully we'll hear something. James (T|C) 09:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. Cunard (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Secret Page MfD

I want to answer something you said about the number of fake secret pages, just so that there isn't any misunderstanding about it. User:Hi878/Right Secret Page is the barnstar, User:Hi878/Wrong Secret Page is the "You didn't find it." message, and User:Hi878/Secret Page List is the lit everyone can see so that they see how many people have found it. The other four are the actual, and the real. I'm not still trying to convince you of anything, I just didn't want any misunderstanding about any of it. Good luck with editing. Hi878 (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Cunard (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of others' secret page

Hi Cunard, I don't think you'll be able to get consensus to delete all silly secret game pages in the short term. It does look likely that there would be consensus to delete all such pages for non-productive editors. Would you like to attempt this as the next step. The majority of participants at Wikipedia talk:User pages#Should secret pages be tolerated based on some assessment of the editor, on his productive edit history and percentage productive edits. seem to have a philosophical problem with this, but regardless it seems to me to be a true reflection of actual practice. I think the participants at WT:UP reflect a different bias to the participants at MfD, for good or ill. MfD results count for more than majority opinion at WT:UP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about starting Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages #2 at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2 for non-productive contribors? Cunard (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That may be a good idea. First, though, I suggest you need to identify a list of secret pages where the pages of productive editors are filtered out. I think that with this filtering at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages, I see a consensus to delete the rest. Many of the keeps were influenced by a notion that these things contribute to social cohesion. Such notions do not apply to non-productive editors. User:MZMcBride might well be able to help with an automated method to filter out pages in the userspace of an editor who has appreciable mainspace edits in the last year (for example). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I've pinged MZMcBride. I'm thinking about a mass MfD to get rid of the secret pages of non-productive contributors, and after that, MfD'ing one by one the secret pages of the other users. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Cunard, I do think that removing the secret pages of non-productive users is justified. However, does it really matter whether or not productive users have them? I really don't see the harm. I don't want to have an argument again, but could you explain to me why the secret pages of productive editors should be deleted? If there isn't anything other than the WP:EQUAL argument, then there is no need to explain, I already understand your point. However, if there is more, please explain it to me. And if I worded anything in that paragraph in a way you might think is offensive, I didn't mean it that way. (I've found three spots where you might think that, but there wasn't really a better way to word them. :) ) Hi878 (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not find anything in your post offensive so there is no need to apologize.

Secret pages, whether from productive editors or non-productive ones, are inappropriate because they promote social networking. Secret page barnstars devalue the reputation of barnstars which are meant for commending those who actually contribute to the encyclopedia, not for praising those who play hide-and-seek games.

There are no vested contributors. I strongly agree with A Stop at Willoughby (talk · contribs)'s comments about this:

[W]e block admins for edit-warring just as we block regular editors for the same; we don't maintain a double standard. I believe that we should avoid a double standard regarding secret pages as well. We should not be telling newer users who ask, "Why are you deleting my secret pages and letting admin X keep his?" that "Admin X is a better user than you, that's why." That's unacceptable; we should only pass judgement on an editor's merits if he solicits such judgement (i.e. at WP:RfA, WP:RfB, WP:RfBAG, WP:ER, etc.) or if his conduct is so problematic as to demand such judgement (i.e. at WP:RFC/U, WP:WQA, WP:ANI, etc.).

Do you believe that there should be vested contributors, such as yourself, who are allowed to host secret pages, whereas those with less productive edits have their games deleted? Cunard (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, in most cases, I would say that vested contributors are a bad idea. However, in some cases, such as this, there isn't really any harm in keeping them, the don't distract the editor, and they don't cause any problems. Anyways, I don't think that at this point this argument is worth continuing, because I won't convince you, and you won't convince me. I think we just need to save it for the next MfDs that happen. :) One more thing. I think that I can throw right back at you another comment by A Stop at Willoughby (talk · contribs). I'm pretty sure that it would apply here too. :) Hi878 (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, come on, you have to tell me what you think of that quote. :) Hi878 (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Literary Barnstar

		The Literary Barnstar
		I hereby award you this Barnstar for all your hard work and dedication in getting Middlesex (novel) to Good Article status. Great job and congratulations! - S Masters (talk) 07:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that Middlesex made GA, so here's a little gift from me. I'm so happy for you! :-) -- S Masters (talk) 07:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the congrats! Your copyedits played a significant role in ensuring that the article had good prose. I hope that Middlesex will soon have a little bronze star on its corner. :) Cunard (talk) 08:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's hope so! Let me know if you need any help. :-) -- S Masters (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I certainly will. Thank you for help. Cunard (talk) 09:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Richard Tylman

If AFD's have come to a "no consensus" result three times in the past, what sense does it make to invite the same people that have proven incapable of agreeing back to the discussion?—Kww(talk) 02:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The participation of users from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18 who were uninvolved in the article will likely lead to a consensus. Cunard (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice, however I can only comment that this is yet another nomination by an antagonist of said individual. Unfortunately, I cannot contribute to the article at the moment per sources I easily located per my earlier mentions in prior deletion nominations. There are other mentions which make an individual notable aside from the very specific "lacking" ones mentioned in the latest AfD. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 02:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I don't have an opinion about the motives of the AfD nominator, the article's merits, or the subject's notability but hope that a consensus can be formed this time either to "keep" or to "delete". Cunard (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As I'd expect, thanks. I suggest prior uninvolved review prior cases without attaching labels to participants, focusing on what is found regardless of source as opposed to what is not found in non-Eastern European oriented sources. That's as much as I can say. Good luck. Best regards, Peters PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 01:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Good advice. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I only see discussion limited to English language sources. WP is not anglo-centric. If anglo-notability were a requirement, a large chunk of EN WP would disappear. Enforcing EN notability can be taken to be discriminatory. I recall participating in some discussion of that somewhere at one time, alas, diffs escape me. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 19:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Here, note mine above, Coolcaesar's, and my response (the actual diff). PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 20:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NONENG, which permits the use of non-English sources, is policy. The problem with the article currently being discussed at the AfD is that editors have not been able to demonstrate that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources, either English or non-English. Cunard (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, any editor who can add Polish sources will, I am afraid, line up an infinite string of ten foot poles to stay away from the fray especially as it has turned into rather repugnant off-Wiki ugliness, just as EEML did. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 14:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The real problem with the past AfD was the mud-slinging, which apparently has already started again. Now you have been accused of a "campaign of canvassing among the EEML warriors" [1]. Pantherskin (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me about this accusation. It's not surprising that such fallacious accusations, borne out of frustration that there is a near-unanimous delete consensus, are being made. I notified the participants at the DRV, many of whom were uninvolved in the WP:EEML case, and they were able to provide an unbiased analysis of whether or not the subject is notable.

I will not respond to the subject because that would lead to need discussion and would be distracting from the discussion about the lack of sufficient coverage in reliable sources. It is wise for you to refrain from participating from the debate (I saw your comment at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)) and I commend you for your restraint and for your sound advice to other users in the same position. Cunard (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Minnnnor query

Hi Cunard! This is a minor point hardly worth discussing, so my apologies for that. I noticed you re-added a deletion review tag to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the War on Terrorism, but the deletion that was actually discussed in the deletion review was a resulting speedy deletion. Or maybe the deletion review tag just goes on anyways? Hope you are well, cheers! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for not consulting you before restoring the {{Delrevafd}} tag. I noticed the AfD was missing the DRV tag when Tim Song closed it as "List at AfD" and believing that I had neglected to tag the AfD a week ago, restored the tag without checking the page history.

Though Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the War on Terrorism wasn't reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 18, I think it would be best to keep the Delrevafd tag on the AfD. The Delrevafd tag serves as a notice that the DRV has superseded the AfD and that a new AfD has been initiated to determine whether the topic should be kept. The Delrevafd will, I hope, prevent any misunderstandings if editors notice that the article has been restored at a different title. Best, Cunard (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me! Thanks for your reply! Take great care, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Middlesex

I have left notes on the article's talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the in-depth review. I will begin addressing your concerns. Cunard (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know#Hays Hall

I found a third ref for the Template talk:Did you know#Hays Hall DYK. I also added one for Osterling. Should be all clear now. Thanks!--GrapedApe (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the reference. I've verified the hook. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK ACE Mixture

Hello Cunard! and thanks for your brief feedback on my did you know nomination. I have updated/expanded the article and removed the 'expand section' template. Captain n00dle \^Talk 13:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Good work! I've verified the hook. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 07:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Konqistador

Totally agree - and I'm not sure how I missed something that obvious. Thanks for catching my error. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Cunard (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

re:Benet Academy FAC

Hello Cunard. No, I haven't forgotten about your suggestions for improving the Benet Academy article. Unfortunately, while I've managed to fit in a few edits per day, some stuff I need to do in real life has prevented me from fully participating in the FAC process. I'm really sorry for keeping you waiting for so long. Benny the mascot (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's all right. My comments are just nitpicks, none of which are major enough to bar the article's promotion to FA (except for the dead link issue, I think). I hope you're doing well in real life. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

AC Transit Bus fight

Oops, you're right - that article does indeed pass the general notability guideline. That was a bit of a drive-by tagging, and a mistake. I'm still not 100% sure it should have an article on Wikipedia, but I'll take a closer look and think about it carefully before deciding whether to take it to AFD. In any case, you were right to remove the template. Robofish (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I, too, am uncertain about whether AC Transit Bus fight passes Wikipedia:NOTNEWS. Keep the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (events) in mind when you decide whether or not to nominate the article for deletion. Best, Cunard (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Herculine Barbin: Being the Recently Discovered Memoirs of a Nineteenth-century French Hermaphrodite

On May 16, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Herculine Barbin: Being the Recently Discovered Memoirs of a Nineteenth-century French Hermaphrodite, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Julie Stoffer DrV

Hi, Could you look at the userspace draft for Julie Stoffer [2]? I believe it's improved a lot since you commented at the DrV. Not sure it's enough to change your mind, but it's now got two sources that are primarily about the topic and two others that are at least fairly reasonable. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for reminding me about the DRV. Cunard (talk) 02:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Middlesex Is Not an FA Yet...

...and I think everyone on Wikipedia can blame you, Cunard, for this horrific failure. Also, I hope my edit to the article of at least 97 seconds ago is to your liking. I think 50% of it is probably not up for debate, and 50% of it might be, and either way it's not stuff that's getting in the way of an article that has, in all sincerity, gone from good-to-superb in truly commendable time. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I wallow in shame and disgust in myself that Middlesex lacks the bronze star of fulfillment. Incidentally, part of the blame will have to rest on your shoulders as well since you have just caused the article to have an unsourced paragraph. Despite your aversion to references, you do have a good eye for typos so I must begrudgingly admit that you have redeemed yourself.

I agree with your condensing as the review is unnecessary detail, probably what Awadewit would call a "fluff quotation". If you have any input to add to the discussion on the talk page, feel free to join in. I need all the assistance I can get, especially with copyediting.

I am honored by your words of commendation. Thank you! Cunard (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

As you know, I am a fanatical opponent of all things properly referenced, and I resent your re-insertion of the sourcing which I so consciously and justifiably removed. I knew exactly what I was doing, you monstrous shit.

I will review Middlesex' talk page, despite my total contempt for its omnipresent sourcing.

Or something. Really, it's an excellent article. The re-read which led to my curious mix of constructive/destructive editing was a good re-read. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to your comments on the talk page, however unhelpful they may be. Cunard (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

1. I hope neither you nor Awadewit will consider this a fluff quotation. I will fight with all my will to keep those beautiful words in the article. Cunard (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cunard. You have new messages at Mazca's talk page.
Message added 20:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~ mazca ^talk 20:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. You know that you're doing something right when they yell at you! Say, maybe you could help with this problem... Could you look at Shunan English School? I think that after the first few lines, the problem will be obvious. I'm not entirely sure how to handle it, so... So I'd love it if you could sort it out. :) Hi878 (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I suppose I could have looked back a bit further than I did... Thank you for fixing that. Hi878 (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries. It's quite interesting that the person who vandalized the article is the same person who created it nearly three years ago. I wonder what happened in those intervening years to cause the user to make this edit years later. It must have been a traumatic experience at Shunan, i.e. a disgruntled employee was laid off. Best, Cunard (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cunard. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 05:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

User blocked

Don't know if you were aware or not. User:Cy Q. Faunce got himself blocked. So he might try to sneak back in as a sock. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed he was blocked after no longer noticing snarky edit summaries for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination). Not surprising considering his disruptive edits over the past few days. The block has since expired so I don't think he'll resort to sockpuppetry unless he wants to votestack. But I'll keep an eye on that. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Robert Titzer's Page

Hello Cunard, I work for Your Baby Can Read and I made extensive edits to the Robert Titzer page per his request, and I just became aware of you reverting everything back to the old text. I will try and make the page more neutral like you stated. What do I need to do to make the changes? I don't want to put more work into it if it is just going to be deleted again. Let me know how to proceed. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Your baby can read (talk • contribs) 22:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because it caused the article to become an unsourced BLP. Your edit also removed categories and sourced information. When making changes to the article, inline citations must be used for every statement. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, particularly Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Close relationships, before making further edits to the article. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Have a nice day

On June 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Have a nice day, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 9

Thanks for the fixes. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good luck with the DRV. Cunard (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Have a nice day

Thank you for your fine contribution to that page---and may all your Wikipedia posts stand the test of time. It was a bit frustrating to see that page almost deleted because it lacked "references" and "meat". No longer a danger I'm sure. I had linked to that page for some time---admittedly mostly as a back-handed stab in closing a sarcastic email message: "Have a nice day!" :-) Best regards, Bruce D. Lightner (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for creating the page. After I happened onto the page and discovered the deletion tag in the page history, I knew it was in a precarious state in that it might be deleted for being original research. Thankfully, there has been plenty of coverage about "Have a nice day", including this gem from The New York Times, which I used to expand the article. Mmm, closing a sarcastic email with a link to the article is perfect! That's a "nice" suggestion that I'll have to use in the future. ;)

I used the phrase on Ginsengbomb (talk · contribs)'s talk page here, in the hope that he would get the subtle suggestion to copyedit it to fix any awkward prose. Being a simpleton and slacker, Ginseng has ignored my hint and the article has remained untouched. He didn't even tell me whether he followed my insincere order to have a nice day! I must immediately rush off to his talk page to inquire about whether or not he has been obedient. For his sake, let's hope he has. ;) Cunard (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Have a nice day

I have nominated Have a nice day, an article that you made an ill-advised attempt to improve despite your questionable command of written English, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; however, you are not welcome to edit the article to address these concerns because we are concerned any further editing will only serve to break Wikipedia. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I am shocked and saddened, disturbed and depressed. It appears that my dear Gingsengbomb has NOT had a nice day. He seems to have a had a very, very, very, very bad one. So bad that I am banned from rectifying the tortured prose of Have a nice day, an article which Ginseng has been strenuously opposed to copyediting. Not only that but despite being a member of this group (and an opposer of it), he seems to have forgotten that Have a nice day doesn't apply. Have a nice day isn't just a "particularly bad article"; it is an extremely twisted, tortured, biased attempt at article writing that leads me to conclude it is a VERY bad article. The writer of it should indeed be banned from the wiki, not indefinitely but infinitely. Cunard (talk) 05:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I was sincerely tickled to see such a grand improvement effort at such a fun little article. I'll definitely take a look at it with my editor hat on at some point soon -- been on a semi-break from the Wiki of late, popping in occasionally to yell boldfaced messages of delete, keep, support, oppose, etc., at various people about various things of minimal import. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I look forward to your copyedits and hope you'll be having a nice day while doing them. Cunard (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Oasis Records

Hi,

Just to let you know I do not see how a being founded by a notiable person is a claim of significance since it is accepted that notability is not inherited - I discounted a merge on the grounds that there is nothing sourced to move and with regards to a plain redirect to which link Giorgio Moroder or Casablanca Records. Codf1977 (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Although notability is not inherited, A7 requires a lower bar to pass than Wikipedia:Notability. I consider a company being founded by a notable individual to be a credible assertion that the company may be notable. In this case, I cannot find significant coverage about Oasis Records, so I have redirected the article to Giorgio Moroder since it is a plausible redirect and is mentioned there. Best, Cunard (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reaching out to CaB for the Korean work. Why do I always seem to stumble on the really messy/crazy AfD's? Argh. Regardless, CaB made it a bit easier to interpret this mess, and I've adjusted my vote in the AfD. I didn't think to request assistance from a Korean editor, and I'm pretty happy you did -- I was dreading trying to figure out how to evaluate those sources. A simple translation wasn't going to cut it.

By the way, I know it's been mentioned on your talk page before, but allow me to mention it again: you would, in my opinion, make an absolutely superb admin. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I always keep Wikipedia:Translators available in mind when I come across deletion discussions that involve non-English sources. Why do you "stumble across messy/crazy AfD's"? It seems to be involved with part of your name but this not part. If you want a serene, lovely wiki-life, I suggest changing your name to Gingsengrose or Ginsengsweet.

Adminship? I've thought about it but decided that I do not need an admin account to bully and harass lowly, non-admin editors such as yourself who are guilty of negligence for not copyediting Have a nice day. If I became an administrator, I must confess that I would be desysopped in less than 10 minutes after I am sysopped because I would be sure to make my first admin action indeffing you for being lazy and negligent. Cunard (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for sending the messages to CaB. I really cannot thank you enough. I am also extremely sorry about this whole mess, but I am really sort of happy I stumbled across the Wiki community. I think I found a lifelong mission now, which is really, really funny and totally unexpected. I just thought I was going to do a couple things here and there, but now I am literally obsessed with Wikipedia, which concerns me.People bios (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing to be sorry about. Many editors—even ones who have been here for a while—have had their pages nominated for deletion. I, for one, saw one of my precious babies nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hungry: A Mother and Daughter Fight Anorexia because it was considered spam. Luckily, it had enough coverage to pass Wikipedia:Notability, so it was kept.

I noticed that you want to write some more Korean biographies. I suggest taking a look at South Korea at the 2010 Winter Olympics or South Korea at the 2010 Winter Paralympics for some ideas; there are many red links of Olympians Paralympians that still haven't been written. There are many inspiring stories; for example, I wrote an article about the Paralympian Miranda Uhl who won a gold medal in the 2008 Summer Paralympics despite being burdened by excruciating pain in her back and knees because of the disease achondroplasia.

Wikipedia can, at times, be a challenging place, but it's rewarding in that it helps improve your writing and researching skills. Cunard (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I am thinking about working on my editing skills for awhile. I am also not sure if I will try to write too many of my own articles, mainly because I am getting very emotional about them. I feel like they are my babies and it's too emotionally demanding.People bios (talk) 07:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Generally, as long as your articles are sourced to multiple reliable sources, you don't need to worry about deletion. There are some exceptions though, such as WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Cunard (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, the article on Have a nice day was hilarious, but the witty back and forth commenting was even funnier. I am sort of glad I started on this project, because I really enjoy the humor I've been seeing here.People bios (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and I hope you'll enjoy it here. Have you ever visited the Automatic Complaint-Letter Generator? I have this to say to you because of my utter hatred of you. Cunard (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

And [here] is my retort. I am actually loving the improvements I've been making on my HTML skills, as well as my writing skills. I enjoy writing and I am a History Major, so I think it's important to document these things. I love to write inspiring stories based on facts.People bios (talk) 07:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ouch! Your astringent words brought tears to my eyes. Cunard (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- But I do love editing and being involved. I'm in education (I actually have a ridiculous amount of hobbies) so I really am big on grammar and clarity. I try to state things clearly and in a coherent manner while abiding by basic English rules and grammar.People bios (talk) 07:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  - I really am big on grammar and clarity. Maybe you can be a copyeditor? I'm planning on bringing Middlesex (novel) to WP:FAC in a few months. When I am finished with writing the article, would you take a look at it and make the article's prose flow better? (Ginsengbomb, I still want you to look at it, but at the pace you're doing copyedits, it'll be 2050 before the article is half done!) Cunard (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
    - Yeah I would love to copyedit it. BTW, it took me awhile to figure out that the automatic complaint generator.People bios (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
    - wow. I hit save without finishing my thought. This is why I need to seriously get some sleep. Anyways, I just realized that the automatic complaint generator was coming up with a new complaint each time. I am really glad you sent it to me though, because I plan on using it in my classes now. I love these things because I always end up using them when I teach.People bios (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
      - Haha and don't cry because of my "astringent words". Come on now, I could have written you a real complaint letter, rather than an automatically generated one, which would have been far worse.People bios (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
        Don't cry? But the words were so dreadfully cutting. I was thinking about running for adminship so that I could block you for saying those mean things to me, but hey, we're not in kindergarten anymore and you've done penance. I guess I'll leave the drama to the administrators' noticeboard. Cunard (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for adding this, but the sentence at the end (In this context, the phrase diverges from its usual 'end of a transaction' usage; however, this gives one example of how the phrase has developed the cultural connotation of sarcasm.) is considered Wikipedia:Original research because no reliable source notes that the phrase was used sarcastically in that instance. Cunard (talk) 04:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I've actually more than paid my dues for that [last offense]. Am I forgiven? I am getting more familiar with how to survive in this political arena. I just casually throw around my insults, personal attacks, and automated letters of complaints without discretion, and then I ask for forgiveness later. If all else fails, I resort to editing for free. I am not above ~~whoring myself~~ editing for free (I should clarify on these things before people start taking me seriously) when it comes to seeking forgiveness from the Wiki community you know.People bios (talk) 04:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  - Ahh, I see the folly of my ways. I just made the If A=B, and B=C, then A=C error, haven't I? Forgive my foolishness. I should have known that this was me trying to push my own theories again. I shall also have to reconsider the article I was planning to write, "People Bios Great and Noteworthy People".People bios (talk) 04:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of TV Episodes Considered The Greatest of All Time

An article that you have been involved in editing, TV Episodes Considered The Greatest of All Time, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TV Episodes Considered The Greatest of All Time. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Maccy69 (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. Cunard (talk) 04:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

@@ Line 341: / Line 341: @@
 ******Don't cry? But the words were so dreadfully cutting. I was thinking about running for adminship so that I could block you for saying those mean things to me, but hey, we're not in kindergarten anymore and you've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Have_a_nice_day&curid=25647095&diff=372844652&oldid=367520277 done] penance. I guess I'll leave the drama to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&curid=5149102&diff=372845561&oldid=372844702#Block_review administrators' noticeboard]. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard#top|talk]]) 04:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 *Thank you for adding [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Have_a_nice_day&action=historysubmit&diff=372846917&oldid=372844652 this], but the sentence at the end (''In this context, the phrase diverges from its usual 'end of a transaction' usage; however, this gives one example of how the phrase has developed the cultural connotation of sarcasm.'') is considered [[Wikipedia:Original research]] because no reliable source notes that the phrase was used sarcastically in that instance. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard#top|talk]]) 04:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 **Yes, I've actually more than paid my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_a_nice_day dues] for that [[http://www.pakin.org/complaint?title=&firstname=Cunard&middlename=&lastname=&suffix=&gender=m&shorttype=f&pgraphs=3 last offense]]. Am I forgiven? I am getting more familiar with how to survive in this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_community political arena]. I just casually throw around my insults, personal attacks, and [[Automatic Complaint-Letter Generator|automated letters of complaints]] without discretion, and then I ask for forgiveness later. If all else fails, I resort to editing for free. I am not above whoring myself when it comes to seeking forgiveness from the Wiki community you know.[[User:People bios|People bios]] ([[User talk:People bios|talk]]) 04:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 ***Ahh, I see the folly of my ways. I just made the If A=B, and B=C, then A=C error, haven't I?  Forgive my foolishness. I should have known that this was me trying to push my own theories again. I shall also have to reconsider the article I was planning to write, "People Bios Great and Noteworthy People".[[User:People bios|People bios]] ([[User talk:People bios|talk]]) 04:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)