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 · JSTOR · NYT · TWL · page history · Books Ngram Viewer
Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL · toolserver ·
Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · 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. |access-date= requires |url= (help)

    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)

DYK nomination of Working with Lemons[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Working with Lemons 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) 22:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Going once, not going twice[edit]

Greetings. In this AfD I misread your input as !voting twice. Apologies. -The Gnome (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

No worries. By the way, thank you, The Gnome (talk · contribs), for your excellent closes at WP:ANRFC. I appreciate your good work. Cunard (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Working with Lemons[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 8 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Working with Lemons, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Working with Lemons participated in an event in Provo, Utah, that broke the world record for most people participating in a live nativity scene re-enactment? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Working with Lemons. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Working with Lemons), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Once Again - formatting and sources Comment[edit]

Hi Cunard, I'm revisiting this discussion we had previously about two issues.

  1. . The formatting you use at AfD incorporating large selective quotes. Please stop as often there is no need to post so much text - a link to the article/reference and a one-line quote so that other editors can find the parts you are referring to is all that is needed. It is not helpful (and in my opinion, disruptive) to have to scroll through pages and pages of text at every AfD you have commented on.
  2. . You choice of sources. I raised this topic with you previously and you opened a query at Notability (Talk). While your question didn't get a lot of comments, it did get one from Rhododendrites that stated So wait, is the question whether the two sources count towards notability, or whether they establish notability themselves? Definitely not to the second.... I acknowledge that you occasionally provide links to sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability, but the vast majority of the time your links fail the criteria. You do not appear to have altered your approach and you appear incapable of determining on your own which references meet the criteria and which don't.

The net effect of your posting large walls of text (e.g. BrightStar Care is that it takes an inordinate amount of time to check each link and read each reference. An article only needs 2 references that meet the criteria in order to establish notability. You do not have to post 6 or 8 references with selected quotations as a big wall of text. I notice also that you often selectively quote from the article but leave out the parts that show that the reference fails the criteria (maybe it relies on an interview or a company announcement, etc). This behavior is disruptive. Can I ask that you stop posting large amounts of references that you say *all* pass the criteria for establishing notability and instead limit yourself to the best 2 or 3. Can I also ask that you stop quoting extensively from those articles as editors will need to go and read the articles themselves anyway - one or two lines at most is all that is required. HighKing++ 14:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding "you appear incapable of determining on your own which references meet the criteria and which don't" about WP:ORGIND, my views align with those of NickCT (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third Rock Ventures (particularly his comments here and here). I cannot agree that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BrightStar Care a 31-page case study from Harvard Business School does not help establish notability. I include all sources I have found since different editors consider different sources acceptable in establishing notability. Some editors may consider the Harvard Business School case study sufficient in establishing notability; some may not but may be convinced by the other sources. I am not being deceptive or dishonest when I quote the parts of articles I consider to establish notability. I have nothing further to add to what I said at User talk:Cunard/Archive 11#Your postings in AfD about my sources and quotations. Cunard (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. I sincerely believe that you intentionally omit the parts of references that clearly show information/data originating directly from a connected source. For example, a paragraph might be something like "The CEO was very excited about future prospects and pointed to company forecasts indicating strong future growth. While the company has not performed well to date, the forecasts indicate that the company is well poised to take advantage of the fractured market over the coming years". You will then omit the first sentence and provide the second sentence as an example of "independent" analysis. This form of selective quotation *is* deceptive and dishonest. As to the HBS case study, I've read it and leaving aside the fact that it was reviewed and approved before publication by a company designate and includes over two pages of company bios of the people that "helped" with the report (therefore not intellectually independent especially if the company *approved* it before publication), leaving all that aside, I cannot identify one statement that includes original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Certainly your quotation (not from the case study but from a "summary") is deceptive in that regard. HighKing++ 15:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I am not being deceptive and dishonest in my quotation of the sources. We will have to agree to disagree. Cunard (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Gentlemen. Gentlemen. Let's all take a second to remember that defining reliable source and notability is a challenge frought w/ pitfalls and subjective interpretations. Not seeing eye-to-eye on exactly how reliable or notable something is to be expected, regardless of how hard we work to define the rules. Not matter how smart we are, we're going to end up calling things notable and reliable or non-notable and unreliable, when they probably aren't.
Cunard - I think HighKing may have a point about how your formating some of your reference lists. I don't think you're doing this on purpose, but the way your posting those lists makes them a little challenging to review. I think if you try posting them in a slightly more concise way, you may find they are more convincing for others.
And HighKing I know you take sorta a strict constructionist view on reliable sources, and I appreciate the need for that, but remember we occasionally need to ignore all rules to make the project better. NickCT (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you NickCT - it is *both* the volume of references as well as the lengthy quotations. Less of both is the way to go on this. Also, I think IAR is fine for exceptional circumstances but I don't think Cunard can invoke this on every AfD. HighKing++ 15:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Some editors disagree with the utility of my reference lists. I understand and respect that. Other editors find the reference lists very useful. In my view they are the best way for me to show why I think the sources establish notability. Cunard (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with User:HighKing. There is no need for the kind of excessive information that you have added here for exemple Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former employees of McKinsey & Company. The wall of text makes it makes the discussion very difficult to read the discussion. Explaining what the source says without copying hugh chunks is enough and there is no need for a full reference style link. As they say ...sometimes more is less. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC Closure questions on Dressed to Kill[edit]

Hi Cunard,

First let me say I sincerely appreciate all the work you have voluntarily contributed to WP to make it better for everyone.

For your closure to Talk:Dressed_to_Kill_(book)#RfC_about_the_summary_section_of_a_book_review_article, this is my first RfC and I wanted to ensure I understood the process. I know that a clear majority of editors had voted to exclude a list of studies and other supporting evidence that I had originally proposed in my prior talk page entry, but this RfC was not asking to add that specific list. It was only asking:

Should the summary section of a book review include supporting studies, that critics claim don't exist, but which are discussed in the book?

Because I had been having difficulty getting any of my edits to pass by a group of editors who seem focused on citing WP:MEDRS, I wanted to break down my changes and start with the proposal that the article needed a summary section of some kind. However, the RfC responses ignored the actual RfC question and instead focused on a prior list of studies I had previously proposed and had noted in my Yes vote. It appears that all of the entries after my own simply commented on my list of studies and ignored the actual RfC question.

I certainly don't want to keep generating RfCs for each and every edit I make to this article, but so far everything I have changed gets reverted with explanations that often don't specifically address the issue. I personally believe that many of the editors reverting my edits are citing WP:MEDRS as if this was an article on "bras causing breast cancer." In fact this is an article on a book review and from everything I can find in the WP guidelines and policies, there is support to have a summary section discussing the main points of the book itself. I further believe that a summary section of this book would be incomplete if it did not include the information presented in the book that supports the book's thesis and which the current article states the experts claim don't exist. To be clear, I am not necessarily proposing that we must use all of the studies and materials in the book from my prior talk page entry, but I do believe we should at least include information on the existence of such information as noted in the book.

So my 2 questions are:

1) Did the closure of this RfC incorrectly summarize the responses since all but a few of them didn't respond to the actual RfC question?
2) Should I submit a new RfC with a clear statement of what I propose to go into the summary section?

Thanks again for your time and advice here. § Music Sorter § (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Music Sorter. Thank you for your kind words. The RfC participants interpreted the RfC question Should the summary section of a book review include supporting studies, that critics claim don't exist, but which are discussed in the book? as referring to this list of supporting studies, so I summarized the RfC as opposing the list's inclusion.

I think it is fine to create a new RfC that proposes the specific material you want to add to the article so that editors do not misunderstand your RfC question or misinterpret it as referring to the list of studies editors discussed in the previous RfC. One of the opponents of the list wrote, "A simple statement that the book … claims that a few studies agree with it would be okay". When writing the proposed summary section, I recommend following Bilorv (talk · contribs)'s advice:

Yes but not the way OP envisages it: the article doesn't really have a book summary section at present, and I think it should. I would suggest moving the second paragraph of "Background" to a new section "Content summary", and adding at most another short paragraph on the studies that the book discusses or other book content. But these descriptions should be heavily editorialised e.g. "The book claims that its results are supported by other studies, such as __ and__" or "Singer and Grismaijer opine that the __ people and __s have a lower rate of breast cancer because..."

Books about pseudoscience should describe that pseudoscience, just like all other non-fiction book articles have content summaries. But we do have serious considerations of WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE to bear in mind when the non-fiction book in question is misrepresenting a myth as fact.

Bilorv's suggestion complies with the advice in the guideline Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Evaluating and describing claims:

Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context – e.g. "There are extreme academic views such as those of Jacques Halbronn, suggesting at great length and with great complexity that Nostradamus's Prophecies are antedated forgeries written by later hands with a political axe to grind." Such claims may contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain neutrality – e.g. "Although Halbronn possibly knows more about the texts and associated archives than almost anybody else alive (he helped dig out and research many of them), most other specialists in the field reject this view." – but restraint should be used with such qualifiers to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment. This is particularly true within articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas: Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations. It is also best to avoid hiding all disputations in an end criticism section, but instead work for integrated, easy to read, and accurate article prose.

After writing the proposed summary section and before creating a new RfC, it may be worthwhile to consult one of the RfC participants (such as Bilorv) about whether it addresses the concerns raised in the previous RfC.

Cunard (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Cunard. I'll consider your proposal for the next steps.
One question about something you proposed. I understand the Fringe Theories guidelines around claims, but much like the WP:MEDRS guidelines, those appear to be guidelines for articles on a topic of a fringe theory. When I read the guidelines for writing book review articles, it clearly states to discuss the key points of the book in the summary section without bias. it also states: Next, the article should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Where a person or organization has released published statements about their aims or objectives, these can be summarized for the reader. In this case, the book has listed OTHER studies which have been published on this topic that support the link. We are simply trying to state what the authors say support their claims since there are organizations who claim there are no other studies that support the link. It appears the WP guidelines clearly support this point. So I think getting back to your original proposal to start a new RfC with proposed content for the summary section following the guidelines used by other FA and GA controversial book review articles would be the best path. Please let me know if you disagree. § Music Sorter § (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Regarding WP:MEDRS, the guideline in its lead says, "This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any Wikipedia article, including those on alternative medicine." I think the advice in Wikipedia:Fringe theories applies not just to articles on topics of fringe theories but also to articles that might discuss fringe theories. Wikipedia:Fringe theories does not state this as prominently as WP:MEDRS does. Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Mentions in other articles says:

Fringe views, products, or the organizations who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. However, meeting this standard indicates only that the idea may be discussed in other articles, not that it must be discussed in a specific article. If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether.

If there is any ambiguity or disagreement over the scope of Wikipedia:Fringe theories, it might be worthwhile to seek clarification on Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories or Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard before starting an RfC on Talk:Dressed to Kill (book).

I found the quote Next, the article should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Where a person or organization has released published statements about their aims or objectives, these can be summarized for the reader. in the Wikipedia:Controversial articles essay, which is not a guideline.

I think it is fine to create an RfC that proposes "stat[ing] what the authors say support their claims" as long as the advice in Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Evaluating and describing claims is followed. To avoid original research, the article should not imply or say "there are organizations who claim there are no other studies that support the link" unless one or more independent reliable sources that comply with Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Reliable sources explicitly say this.

Cunard (talk) 07:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Cunard. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Cunard. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Inspire Brands[edit]

Can you DRV this? Valoem talk contrib 18:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I recommend discussing the restoration of Inspire Brands with Lourdes (talk · contribs), who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inspire Brands. Regarding this edit ("Improper non-admin closure redirect is incorrect as this group owns more that Arby's and clearly Passes NCORP"), Special:UserRights/Lourdes shows that Lourdes is currently an admin.

Inspire Brands has new information since the 29 July 2018 AfD closure:

On August 16, 2018, The Wendy's Company announced that it sold its 12.3% stake in Inspire Brands back to Inspire Brands for $450 million, which includes a 38% premium over its stake most recent valuation.

On September 25, 2018, Inspire Brands announced that it was buying Oklahoma City-based Sonic Drive-In for $2.3 billion. The firm expects that the acquisition should be completed by the end of the year.

There may be enough new information that {{db-repost}} does not apply.

Cunard (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

USA Gold[edit]

I recent expanded an article on ITG Brands, USA Gold is major brand in the US. Did you want to start an article, if you want me to start it a stub can you expand on it or can you provide me sources to create the article? Valoem talk contrib 20:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

── Hi Valoem. I found sources that call USA Gold the "the nation's eighth-best-selling cigarette" in 2015 and "rank[ing] third among discount brands" in 2015 but am able to find only passing mentions about the subject:

  1. Munk, Nina (2015-09-25). "Don't Blink. You'll Miss the 258th-Richest American". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2018-12-02. Retrieved 2018-12-02.

    The article notes:

    Here's the business story: In 1991, when few wanted to be anywhere near the tobacco business, Mr. Kelley started a cigarette company from scratch. Called Commonwealth Brands, and established with a handful of employees in Bowling Green, Ky., it set out to undercut the big tobacco companies by producing discount "branded generic" cigarettes. In 2001, just 10 years after starting the company, Mr. Kelley sold Commonwealth to Houchens Industries for $1 billion in cash. By then, Commonwealth Brands was the fifth-largest cigarette maker in the country, with sales approaching $800 million. Its top brand, USA Gold, was, and still is, the nation's eighth-best-selling cigarette.

  2. Sellers, Patricia; Boorstin, Julia; Tkaczyk, Christopher (2003-04-28). "Altria's Perfect Storm Hit by cut-rate competitors, taxes, and most of all, litigation, the company that owns Philip Morris faces its worst crisis in years". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2018-12-02. Retrieved 2018-12-02.

    The article notes:

    High prices have created an opportunity for new competitors. Bargain-basement cigarettes have popped up, selling under names like USA Gold and Roger. These deep-discount brands now account for about 10% of the U.S. market, up from 2% in 1997.

  3. Range, Jackie (2007-02-09). "Imperial Tobacco to Buy U.S. Company". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2018-12-02. Retrieved 2018-12-02.

    The article notes:

    Imperial described the deal as a low-risk entry into the U.S. market. Commonwealth Brands has 3.7% of the U.S. cigarette market through such brands as USA Gold and Sonoma.

  4. Keates, Nancy (2012-10-25). "The Man With a Million Acres". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2018-03-27. Retrieved 2018-12-02.

    The article notes:

    He started Commonwealth Brands, a small cigarette manufacturer based in Bowling Green, Ky., with discounted brands like USA Gold, Sonoma, Commonwealth, Country Value and a cigar called Brahman in 1991. He sold Commonwealth in 2001 to Houchens Industries, a Bowling Green, Ky.-based conglomerate, for about $1 billion.

  5. Brock, James W. (2015). The Structure of American Industry: Thirteenth Edition (13 ed.). Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press. p. 115. ISBN 978-1-4786-2732-6. Retrieved 2018-12-02.

    The book notes:

    The most successful of these smaller manufacturers has been Commonwealth with its USA Gold brand. The U.S. market continues to be a lucrative one as domestic cigarette manufacturers also face competition from international companies. In 2007, British manufacturer Imperial Tobacco PLC acquired Commonwealth Brands for $1.9 billion in order to gain entry into the U.S. discount market. Commonwealth was the fourth largest cigarette manufacturer in the United States with a 3.7 percent market share; its USA Gold brand ranked third among discount brands.

Cunard (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Chiyo Miyako and Misao Okawa[edit]

Perhaps DRV's to allow recreation should by applied here. I think it is common sense that the top 10 oldest people ever be considered notable. Valoem talk contrib 17:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

It is disappointing that supercentenarians who pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline are being deleted because editors believe without any support in the notability guidelines that sources that provide significant coverage of supercentenarians in the context of their longevity do not contribute to notability. It is disappointing that admins give these WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and WP:NOTINTERESTING arguments the same weight as arguments rooted in Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and significant coverage in reliable sources.

Recent supercentenarian DRVs have been contentious: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 August 6#Chiyo Miyako and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 August 14#Kane Tanaka. New DRVs for Chiyo Miyako and Misao Okawa would be successful if editors and closing admins complied with Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. But they in many cases do not (see for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nabi Tajima (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sakari Momoi (2nd nomination)), so it is very possible that such DRVs would be unsuccessful

For Chiyo Miyako and Misao Okawa, I think a good compromise would be merging the articles to List of Japanese supercentenarians and then doing a spinoff into standalone articles later if so much biographical information is later added that it would be undue weight for their full biographies to be included in the list.

I think presenting these supercentenarians' biographies in lists rather than separate articles would not hurt readers' experience. This would preserve the information and avoid the substantial time and effort needed to defend the articles at AfD and DRV to unreceptive editors and closing admins which is not a good use of time.

Cunard (talk) 06:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's how this encyclopedia works. This is a completely mobbed discussion. Once sources are provided it should in theory cause the page to be kept immediately. There was already a page with content more than "x was born on this date", the application of WP:NOPAGE is ridiculous. The problem is it requires way more work to save an article than delete. I think we should just add three sources and a bit more on her life then restore under the condition of db-repost. Valoem talk contrib 08:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it is unfortunate. Per my comment here, I will avoid expanding longevity biographies. For Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nabi Tajima (2nd nomination), restoring the article will result in another AfD. Since the AfD participants were not convinced by the sources I provided, they probably will not be convinced by any work done on the article, so the result will be "delete" again. To prevent this from happening, I recommend doing a merge to List of Japanese supercentenarians instead of restoring the article. This preserves the content and is a better use of time from having to defend the article at AfD again.

Cunard (talk) 09:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC about Antisemitism in the UK's Labour Party[edit]

Greetings. There is an open RfC, as you know, on the subject of Antisemitism in the UK's Labour Party (here). On the Administrators Noticeboard, you invited (here) an "experienced editor" to close this long-running RfC. Could you, please, examine my proposal about assigning this RfC (which is about a quite significant and controversial subject) to a group of administrators? In so many words, I suggest that this is so important that not only does it need to be taken up from the editor level but not even be assigned to a single administrator. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 12:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi The Gnome. I've commented at WP:ANRFC agreeing with the proposal to have three administrators close the group of RfCs. Thank you again for your excellent work closing discussions at WP:ANRFC. You explained your close of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is an article in World Net Daily reliable source? very well. I enjoyed reading your detailed summary and analysis of editors' arguments.

Cunard (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Taylor Ham[edit]

There is a company called Taylor which mass produced the first pork roll, I believe it was founded by John Taylor (Taylor Ham). Can you find any information such as when the company was founded and if it was the first to produce pork roll. I know it was incorporated in 1939 as Taylor Provisions Company. Valoem talk contrib 22:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

── Hi Valoem (talk · contribs). I have found reliable sources that say pork roll was first developed by John Taylor in 1856 and that Taylor Provisions Company was founded in 1888 and invented and still sells the pork roll product as "John Taylor's Pork Roll". Here are quotes from the books below:

  1. "The Taylor Provision Company, which is regarded as one of the most important of Trenton's commercial interests, was organized in 1888, with ex-Senator John Taylor, one of the best-known citizens of the State, as President ..."
  2. "Pork roll is a very Jersey thing, invented and still made in Trenton by the Taylor Provisions Company and sold as John Taylor’s Pork Roll."
  3. John Taylor of Trenton is credited with being the first to develop [pork roll] in 1856. Taylor, a businessman and politician born in Trenton in 1836, started out as a grocery store clerk. The resourceful young man worked his way up in the pork and beef packing industry and organized the Taylor Provision Company in 1888.

Here are the full sources about Taylor Provisions Company:

  1. Lee, Francis Bazley (1895). History of Trenton, New Jersey: The Record of Its Early Settlement and Corporate Progress. Trenton, New Jersey: J. L. Murphy. p. 312. OCLC 1046583639. Retrieved 2018-12-10.

    The book notes:

    The Taylor Provision Company, which is regarded as one of the most important of Trenton's commercial interests, was organized in 1888, with ex-Senator John Taylor, one of the best-known citizens of the State, as President, and his son, William T. Taylor, as Secretary. The company makes a specialty of provisions, fertilizer and live stock. In the manufacture of fertilizer, the company buys the raw material and prepares it for the market. The trade of the company extends throughout New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The business increases yearly; last year the sales aggregating $200,000. Their plant is located on Perrine avenue, and is connected with Pennsylvania railroad by a private siding. The two main departments are the fertilizer and the provision buildings, the dimensions of the former being thirty-four by one hundred and twenty-five feet, and of the latter, thirty-five by one hundred and ten feet.

  2. Schnitzspahn, Karen L. (2012). Jersey Shore Food History: Victorian Feasts to Boardwalk Treats. Charleston, South Carolina: The History Press. ISBN 978-1-61423-727-3. Retrieved 2018-12-10.

    The book notes:

    A tightly packed ground ham, somewhat like pork roll, is said to date back to the Battle of Trenton during the American Revolution, but this cannot be verified. Pork roll, though a generic name, is often known as Taylor Ham (the same product as Taylor Pork Roll). John Taylor of Trenton is credited with being the first to develop the food item in 1856. Taylor, a businessman and politician born in Trenton in 1836, started out as a grocery store clerk. The resourceful young man worked his way up in the pork and beef packing industry and organized the Taylor Provision Company in 1888. He served as a state senator and built the Taylor Opera House in Trenton. Taylor died in 1909, but his name lives on with his famous product, whether it's called Taylor Ham or Taylor Pork Roll.

    In the 1950s, at the peak of its retail operations at the Jersey Shore, Taylor Pork Roll had eight sandwich shops, including three in Atlantic City, two in Cape May and one each at Wildwood, Seaside and Asbury Park. The last shop standing was the one in Cape May that closed when the operator retired in the early 1980s.

  3. Bryson, Lew; Haynie, Mark (2008). New Jersey Breweries. Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania: Stackpole Books. pp. 108–109. ISBN 978-0-8117-3504-9. Retrieved 2018-12-10.

    The book notes:

    Pork roll is a very Jersey thing, invented and still made in Trenton by the Taylor Provisions Company and sold as John Taylor’s Pork Roll. (And before the arguments start about the “real name” of the product or the company—as they will, this is passionate stuff—I’m taking that right from the wrapper of my latest chunk of pork roll. I’m looking at it right now, okay?) John Taylor, the original John Taylor, a New Jersey state senator, first made pork roll in 1856. It still comes in a sewn cloth wrapper, like a real sausage, not a “formed meat product.”

  4. Barth, Linda J. (2018). New Jersey Originals: Technological Marvels, Odd Inventions, Trailblazing Characters and More. Charleston, South Carolina: The History Press. p. 45. ISBN 978-1-4671-3926-7. Retrieved 2018-12-10.

    The book notes:

    John Taylor began producing pork roll in Trenton in 1856, and it's still made there today by Taylor Provisions on Perrine Avenue.

    Officially called "Original Taylor Pork Roll," it is also known as Taylor Prepared Ham," but since it did not meet the Pure Food and Drug Act's definition of ham, he was forced to change the name in 1906.

    Taylor sued others who manufactured pork roll with names similar to his product. But in 1910 the court ruled that the name "pork roll" could not be trademarked. It was described as "a food article made of pork, packed in a cylindcrical cotton sack or bag in such form that it could be quickly prepared for cooking by slicing without removal from the bag."

    John Taylor wanted to keep the recipe a secret, and so it is to this day. Pork roll is generally sold in one-, three-, or six-pound unsliced rolls packed in a cotton bag. Customers can also buy it pre-sliced. Pork roll can be found at delicatessens, diners, lunch stands and food trucks in the region.

Cunard (talk) 08:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, what do you think should be the title of the page should I create it as Taylor Pork Roll, Taylor (brand) or Taylor Provisions Company. Valoem talk contrib 13:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
If you are writing an article about the company, I think the article should be called Taylor Provisions Company. If you are writing an article about the product, I think the article should be called Taylor Pork Roll. Cunard (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Question about WikiProject on Longevity[edit]

Dear Cunard, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that a new group was founded: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Longevity Note the table in which they target regular articles nominating them for deletion and canvassing votes to make sure these articles are deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Longevity#AfDs_of_individual_biographies As if it was not enough, they also target lists' articles. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Polish_supercentenarians_(3rd_nomination) Is this OK? I want to emphasize that there was no discussion first about their plan before they started and they have not given people enough time to improve articles nominated for deletion. Voting en masse to delete also gives the appearance of canvassing violations, rather than getting the general feel of the neutral, third-party Wikipedia editor. They also give incorrect reasons for deletion, showing that they lack basic knowledge. With all due respect, but this seems a clear case of vandalism and bad-will. I thank you for your time. Cordially, Garlicolive 22:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that nominating a large number of articles over a short period of time has made it very difficult to find sources. I agree that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Longevity#AfDs of individual biographies has attracted attention from members of the WikiProject to the AfDs. I do not know if there are policy violations though. Maybe you can check with DGG (talk · contribs), an admin who is more experienced in matters like this than I? Cunard (talk) 05:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Garlicolive I There was a time in the past when very low standards were accepted, and this is an understandable reaction to it, which, as is frequent around here, has gone overboard. People who support these articles need to first of all join the project, and second, not ty to defend the least solid of them. The GNG does not work well in this area, because the sources are either to some degree affiliated or somewhat local or fairly brief notices., and these can often be argued either as sufficient for notable or not, depending on what result one is trying to achieve. Normally I oppose human interest material fo this sort, but I think we need to establish a minimum--that we will have an article on everyone who is a verified world record holder. We might possibly also establish it for the major countries--US, UK, Japan, China. We shouldn't even try to do it for individual states, or for 2nd oldest. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
DGG Dear DGG, thank you very much for your comment, I appreciate your input. Cunard invited you for this discussion and I am thankful to him for it. I agree that some guidelines should be established in respect of notability that should be followed. The article creation level requirements in the past were too low but deletion levels now are too high. We need balance here and a pause to develop standards. For instance, I believe that the GWR-validated World Oldest Person/Man/Woman titleholders are notable. But the WikiProject Longevity has deleted many articles on them already without issuing a proper debate beforehand. Also, in my honest opinion, we need national list articles preserved under condition there are strong sources used. The members of the WikiProject nominate articles for deletion on people known for other reasons than their longevity. For reference the nomination of Elza Brandeisz who is famous for saving the life of George Soros during the war. Fortunately, that article has been kept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elza_Brandeisz" Likewise they even nominate for deletion the stand-alone articles on Titanic survivors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Longevity#AfDs_of_non-supercentenarian_individual_biographies I am led to believe that we really need to pause the action of that project and work on some new yet understandable for everyone standards. If some clear standards are worked out, it will be beneficial for the encyclopedia. Garlicolive ( talk ) 14:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Garlicolive (talk · contribs), I hear your concerns and find them to be very valid. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Hughes (supercentenarian), BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) has expressed similar concerns as you have here and I have here and is another experienced admin who is more experienced in matters like this than I. Cunard (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Buttermilk Crispy Tenders[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buttermilk Crispy Tenders can you find sources for this subject? Valoem talk contrib 15:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buttermilk Crispy Tenders with sources I have found. Cunard (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Matty Matheson[edit]

I recently wrote an article on him, but I could not verify his year of birth with accuracy. I verified he was born February 7 based on his Instagram. But sources are conflicting about the year. I know 1986 is incorrect. Assuming February 7 is his correct birth date this source says he was born in 1982. This source torontolife.com says he is both born in 1981 per "He moved to Toronto in 2000 at age 19" and 1983 "One night in June 2012, on the tail end of a three-day bender, Matheson clocked out from work and walked to his nearby apartment, where he flopped into bed beside Trish. He woke up around 7 a.m., several hours earlier than normal, in extreme pain. He told Trish it felt like his heart was being squeezed in a vice. She drove him to St. Joe’s hospital, where a doctor tested his enzyme levels and told Matty that he’d had a heart attack. He was 29". Is there anyway to verify which is correct? Valoem talk contrib 08:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

── Hi Valoem. When sources differ about a person's birth year, one way to handle this is to present the differing views. Here is a footnote to the birthdate in the Mariah Carey article that shows one way discrepancies can be presented.

Here is a tweet by Matty Matheson:

Matty Matheson via Twitter
@mattymatheson

ITS MY 34th BIRTHDAY!!! WE OUT HERE AT CAJUN MARDI GRAS!!!! HELL FUCKING YEAH!!!!! @munchies… https://www.instagram.com/p/BBfLmrHAHhe/

7 February 2016

Source:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BBfLmrHAHhe/ says Matty Matheson was at Church Point, Louisiana when he took the Instagram photo referenced in the tweet. This means that when he posted this tweet at 13:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC), his local time was 07:45, 7 February 2016 (CST).

2016 – 34 = 1982. This means that we can use his tweet to verify that he said he was born 7 February 1982. I think this should comply with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Using the subject as a self-published source.

Cunard (talk) 09:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that was the original date I used. I hope you've had a happy holidays so far. :) Valoem talk contrib 09:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome. My holidays have been good so far. I hope it is the same with you! :) Cunard (talk) 09:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Quick question are you able to get a subscription to nytimes through Wikipedia editing? I am trying to write and article on Atelier Crenn there are some strong nytimes sources. Valoem talk contrib 18:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
The New York Times is not listed as a partner on Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Navbox. One way to access articles is through the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. For example, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/29/dining/dominique-crenn-michelin-three-stars.html can be accessed at https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/29/dining/dominique-crenn-michelin-three-stars.html. Here is a direct link to one of the archives: https://web.archive.org/web/20181130054114/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/29/dining/dominique-crenn-michelin-three-stars.html. Cunard (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm actually not able to access https://web.archive.org/web/20181130054114/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/29/dining/dominique-crenn-michelin-three-stars.html nor the other link. I think once you use the five articles it blocks you till next month. Also would you be interested in writing an article on Jeju Shinhwa World? [1], [2], [3], [4] and Forbes Valoem talk contrib 13:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Another way to access articles is through Archive.is. For example, you can access https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/29/dining/dominique-crenn-michelin-three-stars.html at https://archive.is/KQey8. I'm not interested in writing an article on Jeju Shinhwa World at this time. If you write an article about it, I'd be happy to do a copyedit. Cunard (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I went ahead and created the article. I am having issues verifying the date the Landing Casino opened is there any incorrect information you could correct? Valoem talk contrib 01:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Good work on the article, and happy New Year! One thing I noticed is that the article uses two date styles: "September 30, 2017" and "25 February 2018". I recommend sticking to one date style for consistency.

The Landing Casino was originally at Hyatt Regency Jeju Hotel before being relocated to Jeju Shinhwa World on 25 February 2018:

Blaschke, Ben (2018-03-22). "Korea's Jeju Shinhwa World holds Grand Opening". Inside Asian Gaming. Archived from the original on 2019-01-02. Retrieved 2019-01-02.

The article notes:

Spanning a total area of 2.5 million square meters, Jeju Shinhwa World comprises luxury hotels, theme parks, MICE facilities and gaming following the launch of the relocated Jeju Shinhwa World Landing Casino on 25 February.

...

The casino was moved from its former home at Hyatt Regency Jeju Hotel in February.

Cunard (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

"Affluent"[edit]

In your decision here, did you mean to include other cities using the word affluent as well as Riverdale? Have you checked out the controversies at other cities (particularly in Los Angeles) where the dispute exists? If not, should there be a centralized discussion somewhere to talk about this difference of opinion? Sorry for so many questions. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The original question by User:Beyond My Ken did not ask for a decision specifically about Riverdale. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I refer you to this discussion, which I believe was wrongly decided and should be reopened. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
In my close here, I included only Riverdale, Bronx, because I don't think a discussion on Talk:Riverdale, Bronx, should be applicable to all cities even if the RfC question did generally ask about using affluent as a "description of places". A discussion held at a centralized page like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), or the talk page of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch would be needed to achieve a consensus on whether to avoid using "affluent" in city articles in general.

To contest the close of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Archive 19#Request for comment, I recommend discussing with that RfC's closer first and if you cannot agree taking it to a closure review at Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures. Cunard (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.
Thank you. Happy New Year to you, Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! (for Vertcoin)[edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I appreciated your conduct in the recent AFD on Vertcoin, I especially applaud your efforts to make sure that reasonable attention was taken for the details. This is also for your 11 years as a Wikipedian, congratulations and job well done. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your kind words, Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs)! And thank you for your nearly 10 years (10 years by April 2019) of content contributions and WP:AFC work. Happy New Year!

Cunard (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Good Cook[edit]

I was interested in writing an article on this brand Good Cook, due to the common use of the name I am having issues finding sources. I thinkthe parent company Bradshaw International is also notable. Valoem talk contrib 02:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

── Hi Valoem. Here are some sources I found:

  1. Cho, Rebecca (2011-02-10). "Housewares marketer seals deal with Top Chef star". Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. Archived from the original on 2019-01-05. Retrieved 2019-01-05.

    The article notes:

    The "Top Chef" star [Fabio Viviani] formed a partnership with Bradshaw International, the Rancho Cucamonga-based U.S. distributor for Bialetti, as a spokesman, the company said this week.

    ...

    Bialetti is a household name in Italy, where about 90 percent of Italian homes use a Moka Express. After launching its cookware lines in the U.S. in 2000, Bialetti has been strengthening its mainstream presence and hopes to use Viviani's appeal to bring attention to their newest products this year, said Brett Bradshaw, president of Bradshaw International.

    ...

    Bradshaw International, which also handles marketing for companies such as Good Cook and Mr. Clean, has had its headquarters in Rancho Cucamonga since 1997.

  2. Deer, Karen (2005-07-16). "Cutting edge". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2019-01-05. Retrieved 2019-01-05.

    The article notes:

    BRADSHAW International has introduced a new can opener called the Good Cook Orbi Safecut Can Opener. The company claims the cutting wheel leaves both the can and lid edges smooth.

  3. Moyle, Andrew (2004-02-17). "Bradshaw International opens up". Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. Archived from the original on 2019-01-05. Retrieved 2019-01-05.

    The article notes:

    Chances are fair that the potato peeler, pizza wheel or can opener any American home chef picks up at the supermarket came from Bradshaw International Inc.

    ...

    Under the brand name Good Cook, Bradshaw International has captured 43 percent of the nationwide market for kitchen ware sold at supermarkets and drug stores - inventory for all of which will pass through the headquarters complex when the operation is at 100 percent by the end of March.

    In California, consumers can spot kitchen gadgets, food storage, tabletop products, bakeware and cookware bearing Good Cook's recognizable red labels at Albertsons, Food 4 Less, Gelsons, Harman's, Kitchen Collection, Raley's, Safeway, Sav-on Drug, Stater Brothers and Vons.

  4. "Oneida to sell subsidiary". Associated Press. 2004-07-07. Archived from the original on 2019-01-05. Retrieved 2019-01-05.

    The article notes:

    Struggling Oneida Ltd. said Wednesday it has struck a tentative deal to sell its Encore Promotions Inc. subsidiary to Bradshaw International Inc., and enter into a licensing agreement.

    ...

    Based in Rancho Cucamonga, Calif., Bradshaw is a leading marketer and distributor of kitchenware products including the Good Cook brand. Oneida has another licensing venture with Bradshaw for mass-market cookware and bakeware products.

  5. Stark, Judy (2005-01-15). "Not too pricey, not too cheap". Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original on 2019-01-05. Retrieved 2019-01-05.

    The article notes:

    Multitasking, anyone? The 4in1 Opener from Good Cook opens cans, pulls tabs, twists lids and lifts bottle tops with ease. Reduce clutter in kitchen drawers - a popular idea at this time of year - and let this one gadget do it all. Suggested retail: $12.99. It will be at grocery stores and retailers this month. Go to www.goodcook.com for where to buy.

  6. Sylvester, Joe (2013-06-11). "Meet a 'recipe hoarder' Local food blogger is making a name for herself". Times Leader. Archived from the original on 2019-01-05. Retrieved 2019-01-05.

    The article notes:

    Christina Hitchcock reads cookbooks like other people read novels.

    ...

    For more than three years, the Lackawanna County woman has been sharing her recipes and cooking tips through her blog called “It is a Keeper!” A national food magazine, Taste of Home, also recently selected her as a field editor, and goodcook.com, the website for one of the leading manufacturers of kitchen tools, bakeware and cookware, named her a kitchen expert, giving her the opportunity to test their products, such as the produce keepers she recently tried out.

  7. "New Kitchen Products, That's What". Grand Forks Herald. Associated Press. 2004-11-25. Archived from the original on 2019-01-05. Retrieved 2019-01-05.

    The article notes:

    Add style and color to the kitchen with the new Bonny Silicone Tool Collection ($5.99-$6.99) that is heat safe to 450 degrees. Tools come in a variety of translucent colors from ladles to slotted turners. On the Web: www.goodcook.com.

  8. Falcheck, David (2013-08-03). "Area Food Blogger Added To Website Experts". The Scranton Times-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2019-01-05. Retrieved 2019-01-05.

    The article notes:

    A local food blogger has been picked up as a kitchen expert by gadget and bakeware retailer GoodCook.com.

    Christina Hitchcock, a food blogger from Madison Twp., has had her blog, www.itisakeeper.com, since 2010 and has since branched off onto Youtube.com.

    She's been added to GoodCook.com's stable of about 50 kitchen experts in its blogger outreach program.

Cunard (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Brands[edit]

Fredmeyer edit 1.jpg
Hello, Cunard.

You are invited to join WikiProject Brands, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of brands and brand-related topics.
To join the project, just add your name to the member list. North America1000 20:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Lucyphone[edit]

You removed my edit for Lucyphone, which I added to benefit readers. Lucyphone is a 32 bit app, and will not work on any iPhone of IOS 11 or higher, and is not even visable in the app store. If you have an iPhone, that will "prove" that is true. If not, how do you prove a negative? Do you want me to screen shot a lucyphone search from my iPhone to prove it doesn't show up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.115.133.22 (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I reverted the edit because it was not sourced. A screenshot of a LucyPhone search from your iPhone would violate Wikipedia:No original research. An acceptable reliable source would be a newspaper or magazine article or a book that states that LucyPhone does not work on any iPhone of IOS 11 or higher. Please restore the content only if such a source can be found to verify the addition. Cunard (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Penang Malaysian & Thai Cuisine[edit]

Thanks for your help. I always wonder how you filter results for common name. I remember eating at this restaurant chain as a child, Penang Malaysian & Thai Cuisine, but I am unable to find sources besides [5], [6] and [7]. I cannot find out how old this chain is who founded it and where the first location was. I remember this was at least a national level chain. I can only find 5 locations.

  1. 200 NJ-10, East Hanover, NJ 07936
  2. 505 Old Post Rd, Edison, NJ 08817
  3. 5938, 635 Nassau Park Blvd, Princeton, NJ 08540
  4. 117 N 10th St, Philadelphia, PA 19107 (This location is named Penang Restaurant, but is confirmed to be apart of the chain)
  5. 2491 George Busbee Pkwy NW, Kennesaw, GA 30144 Google Maps link
  6. 334 N Main St Lodi, NJ 07644 closed

I believe there are even more locations, but if I type in Penang Restaurant I get many hits not related to the chain. Is this restaurant chain notable? Valoem talk contrib 18:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I found a New York Times article giving it significant coverage but still no history of the chain.

I found more locations through yelp and two additional sources CBS and ABC using "Penang Malaysian Cuisine" which ranked it as the number one Malaysian restaurant in the city.

  1. 1720 W Algonquin Rd, Arlington Heights, IL 60005 Yelp
  2. 4933 Bethesda Ave Bethesda, MD 20814 Yelp

So it should be notable enough to have an article, however I still cannot find basic information regarding its history and corporate structure. Valoem talk contrib 19:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

── Hi Valoem. You're welcome. To filter results for common names, I try to find more unique terms to pair with them in my searches. For Penang Malaysian & Thai Cuisine, I paired it with "Cheah" (founders' last name) and the different cities you mentioned.

Here are sources I found about the subject:

  1. Walkup, Carolyn (2002-02-18). "Orient express: Asian cuisine becomes one hot ticket in mainstream America". Nation's Restaurant News. Vol. 36 no. 7. p. 4.

    The article notes:

    Stanley and June Cheeah, owners of New York-based Penang, just opened their eighth branch of the Malaysian concept, in Washington, D.C., adding to previous openings in New York City: Long Island, N.Y.: Boston; and Philadelphia.

    Penang “is not a typical Asian restaurant,” explained Craig Noah, manager of the Washington location. All servers speak fluent English and can explain nuances of the menu in detail, he said.

    The Washington location, at 19th and M streets, is in a prominent restaurant neighborhood. Penang's decor includes mahogany woodwork, metal accents and dramatic lighting. The lounge attracts a late-night cocktail crowd that comes to socialize and listen to acid jazz.

    Note that "Cheeah" is a misspelling of their last name. The other sources say the name is spelled "Cheah".
  2. Reichl, Ruth (2004-12-30). "Restaurants". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2019-01-13. Retrieved 2019-01-13.

    The article notes:

    When the owners of Penang Malaysia Cuisine, a wonderfully authentic Malaysian restaurant in Flushing, decided to take their act to SoHo, they left behind the harsh storefront lighting, the plastic tablecloths and the cash-only policy. They also abandoned the fish-head soup. Clearly, June and Stanley Cheah had more in mind than just opening an ethnic restaurant in an upscale area of Manhattan. They seem to have edited their menu to introduce their country's little-known cuisine in the most appealing fashion. Penang is the opposite of those Chinatown restaurants where hopeful diners are invariably told "You won't like that" when they order exotic dishes. The Cheahs want you to love their food, and since opening in early November they have done everything they can to see that you do.

  3. Metcalf, Andrew (2014-04-18). "Penang Restaurant Prepares to Unveil New Renovations". Bethesda Magazine. Archived from the original on 2019-01-13. Retrieved 2019-01-13.

    The article notes:

    Penang restaurant on Bethesda Avenue has been closed for several weeks while it undergoes more than $60,000 in renovations in hopes of appealing to a broader crowd.

    This is the first time the Malaysian and Thai restaurant has renovated since it opened in 2001, according to owner Kevin Cheah.

  4. Arnett, Alison (1997-07-06). "A taste for adventure". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2019-01-13. Retrieved 2019-01-13.

    The first page of the article is available at Newspapers.com at https://www.newspapers.com/clip/27123575/the_boston_globe/. The page this text is on is at https://www.newspapers.com/clip/27123569/the_boston_globe/.

    The article notes:

    In a lucky alignment of the stars, Food & Wine magazine declared Malaysian food the hottest new trend for 1997 shortly after Penang Malaysian Cuisine opened on Washington Street, in Boston, in December of last year.

    ...

    This is the fourth Penang restaurant, named for the resort island off the mainland of Malaysia, and the first outside of New York. June and Suan Lee Cheah, the owners, decided that Boston was the next step in their expansion plans. So far, Boston is returning the compliment, filling the restaurant past early expectations, Toh says.

  5. Mehta, Manik (2006-08-12). "Guess Who's Coming for Dinner at Stanley Cheah's Restaurant". NAM News Network. Archived from the original on 2019-01-13. Retrieved 2019-01-13.

    The article notes:

    Prominent politicians and other personalities are not a rare sight in the restaurants owned by New York-based Malaysian restaurateur Stanley Cheah, a native of Penang.

    While the "Nyonya" is Cheah's flagship restaurant, his other restaurants run under the "Penang" franchise which is patronised by Asian and American diners who appreciate Malaysia's three main cuisines, Chinese, Indian and Malay.

    ...

    With wife June Khoo sitting by his side -- she started her career on a humble note as a waitress -- Cheah recounts his early start in the US, the land of unlimited opportunities for people from all kinds of backgrounds, colour, race and religions.

    ...

    "In 1996, I opened three restaurants, followed by another three in 1997 and three more in 1998. My restaurants serve Malaysian food. However, I also opened a Vietnamese, a Japanese and an American restaurant at different locations. I have, meanwhile, sold the Vietnamese and American restaurants," he reveals.

  6. "Opening Cain and Abel?". New York. 1996-08-12. Retrieved 2019-01-13.

    The article notes on page 70:

    Penang—This Malaysian mini-dynasty began in Queens and has sprouted two Manhattan locations. Sample such exotic offerings as roti canai, beef rendang, and sarang burung in environs that strive to evoke the tropics.

    The article notes on page 71:

    The Malaysian restaurant dynasty called Penang is not growing quite as fast as one would assume from the appearance this week of Penang Bar and Grill. It's being opened by Michael Cheah, who is the estranged brother of the owner of the SoHo and Columbus Avenue outposts of the same name. Despite the uncannily similar bamboo décor, Malaysian menu, and—of course—that name, the two businesses, according to the other Penangs' Stanley Cheah, have nothing in common. In deference to its East Village locale, the new Penang has lower prices, lunch specials, and a sunny garden.

  7. Shen, Ted (1999-05-27). "Restaurant Tours: Penang's Malaysian melting pot". Chicago Reader. Archived from the original on 2019-01-13. Retrieved 2019-01-13.

    The article notes:

    Ken Lim surveys the Friday-night crowd at Penang, the Malaysian restaurant his family owns in Chinatown.

    ...

    Tension among Malaysia's 60 ethnic groups flares up periodically, the severest between the Malay majority and the Chinese, who are a minority in most of the country. "When the economy is doing good, the Chinese get hassled," sighs Cindy Cheah, Lim's mother. "When it's bad, the government welcomes overseas Chinese to invest." In the mid-70s, when non-Muslim Chinese were barred from Malaysian politics and government jobs, Cheah and her husband left their children with a grandmother to emigrate to Connecticut, where they opened a Szechuan restaurant. "Nobody knew about Malaysian food. They were scared to eat curry and lemongrass," she recalls. But by the late 80s, Cheah figured American palates were ready for Malaysian cuisine. She and several of her ten siblings opened the first Penang in Flushing, New York, a neighborhood with a large concentration of Indian and Chinese immigrants. It was an immediate hit, and Cindy Cheah got all her children, who had by then arrived in this country, to help out. ...

    The Penang empire grew to encompass five restaurants in the New York area and another in Atlanta. The family decided last year to open a branch in the midwest.

  8. Zeldes, Leah A. (2007-09-14). "Penang introduces unique food to suburbs". Daily Herald. Archived from the original on 2019-01-13. Retrieved 2019-01-13.

    The article notes:

    You no longer have to schlep to Chinatown to try Malaysian food. The number of Malaysian restaurants in the Chicago area doubled recently with a new branch of Penang.

    Ken Lim, a scion of the family that opened the first Penang restaurants on the East Coast, opened the local version -- Chicago's only Malaysian restaurant -- in Chinatown in 1999. This summer, Lim added a lovely suburban sister near the Arlington Heights/Rolling Meadows border.

  9. Mah, Evan (2012-07-25). "A guide to Chinese dumplings across Atlanta's Buford Highway". Atlanta. Archived from the original on 2019-01-13. Retrieved 2019-01-13.

    The article notes:

    According to most of my Chinese friends, finding good dumplings in Atlanta is harder than scaling the Great Wall. They would rather make them on their own. One friend, though, was more optimistic than the rest. Chef Ken Lim, the owner at Penang Atlanta, has been eating dumplings for thirty years, and he offered to be my guide for the afternoon. Lim first came to Atlanta in 1996 to help his uncle open Penang, and just last year Lim returned to the city to takeover the family business.

    ...

    The enticing Northwest suburban location presents a menu similar (although not identical) to the downtown Penang. Named for one of the 13 states of Malaysia, Penang concentrates on the cuisine of that country, plus some dishes from neighboring Thailand.

  10. Koh, Buck Song (2017) [2011]. Brand Singapore (Second Edition): Nation Branding After Lee Kuan Yew, in a Divisive World (2 ed.). Singapore: Marshall Cavendish. p. 111. ISBN 9789814779432. Retrieved 2018-01-13.

    The book notes:

    The existing gulf in achievement by Singaporeans in the food and beverage industry is huge, compared with the universal popularity and presence of, say, Chinese, Japanese or Thai food. Even Malaysia is represented by the Penang chain of restaurants that has opened in many major US cities.

  11. Tucker, Robert (1999-07-02). "Penang adds new flavor to Chinatown". Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on 2019-01-13. Retrieved 2019-01-13.

    The article notes:

    Penang, a Malaysian restaurant and sushi bar, opened at the corner of this hectic intersection in October 1998. ...

    Indian cuisine is just one of the several influences behind the food at Penang. Penang is named for the ethnically diverse state in Malaysia. Half of that state's population is ethnically Chinese, while Indians and the native Malays make up most of the other half. Appropriately, the cuisine at Penang reflects all three major influences, as well as other influences from the area.

    Penang is the Chicago offshoot of the Penang restaurants that originated in New York. More than half a dozen now exist in the country. Granted, warning lights should flash when any kind of ethnic cuisine and multiple restaurants or chains are mentioned in the same breath. Far too often a cookie-cutter, chain culture of tamed, spiritless cooking has killed what might originally have been a clever restaurant concept.

    Thankfully, Penang has not fallen into that trap. Enticing, progressive flavors and fresh, varied ingredients abound. So along with the lovely new street lamps, refurbished sidewalks and other noticeable improvements that have come to Chinatown in the last year, Penang is a welcome addition to the neighborhood.

  12. LaBan, Craig (1998-08-09). "Adventurous Tastes of Malaysia". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2019-01-13. Retrieved 2019-01-13.

    The article notes:

    From the moment we approach the iron facade of Penang, just steps from the ornate, pagoda-crowned arch over 10th Street, it's clear we are about to enter a world unlike any other in Chinatown.

    The cafe windows of this new Malaysian outpost, an emissary from a budding chain of New York restaurants, frame steel-covered woks shaped into tall tables. Opened onto the street, it has a striking iron smile, welded at the seams in a hodgepodge of postindustrial fantasy.

  13. Kessler, John (1998-06-19). "Ah! Asian. Crossroads flavors are a wonder". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on 2019-01-13. Retrieved 2019-01-13 – via Newspapers.com.

    The article notes:

    I was thrilled to discover chicken rice again at Penang Malaysian Cuisine, a popular new Buford Highway spot. Then again, I was thrilled to try all the other dishes I missed in Malaysia. This crossroads cuisine --- in which Chinese, Thai, Indian and native Malay dishes vie for attention --- fills Penang's menu with a mind-boggling selection. You can start with Indian roti pancakes, Malaysian pickled vegetables with peanut sauce or duck web in spicy Thai sauce. Then move on to an entree of Cantonese rice porridge with pork and preserved egg, barbecue fish in banana leaf or Singapore-style fried noodles.

    Penang is the first outpost of a New York-area chain owned by the Cheah family, with two more scheduled for Washington and Chicago. The Cheahs have a smart formula that goes beyond the 150-item menu. They outfit the restaurant as a hip-tacky tropical beach that will put you in mind of Trader Vic's.

  14. There is information about Penang's June Khoo and Suan Lee Cheah at https://books.google.com/books?id=TuECAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA105.
  15. Leung, Shirley (1997-04-09). "Chinatown enjoys a renaissance. Investment renewing area". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2019-01-13. Retrieved 2019-01-13.

    https://www.newspapers.com/clip/27124092/the_boston_globe/ is the first page of the article.

    The article notes:

    At the moment, the restaurant that is turning heads is Penang, which opened four months ago at the old Intermission Lounge and has an adult bookstore as a neighbor.

    ...

    Penang's owner, Suan Lee Cheah, 35, has four Malaysian restaurants in New York, including one in Soho. He said he saw opportunity in Boston's Chinatown.

Cunard (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the source, but are you sure they are talking about this chain (based on logo)? As far as I can tell every Penang in NYC has closed down including this first one in Flushing. Also was the first restaurant founded in 1996 and Stanley Cheah is Suan Lee Cheah? Valoem talk contrib 13:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
They are taking about the same chain as the one with this logo. The article from The Boston Globe says:

In a lucky alignment of the stars, Food & Wine magazine declared Malaysian food the hottest new trend for 1997 shortly after Penang Malaysian Cuisine opened on Washington Street, in Boston, in December of last year. ... This is the fourth Penang restaurant, named for the resort island off the mainland of Malaysia, and the first outside of New York. June and Suan Lee Cheah, the owners, decided that Boston was the next step in their expansion plans.

http://www.penangmalaysian.com/Internet Archive, the website for a Penang restaurant on 685 Washington St, Boston, MA, has the same logo as the one in the Google Maps.

A large number of the sources talk about "Stanley and June Cheah" or "Suan Lee and June Cheah" in the context of this restaurant. I think "Stanley Cheah" and "Suan Lee Cheah" are the same person with "Stanley" being the American version of the name "Suan Lee".

I don't think we can say with certainty that the first Penang restaurant was founded in 1996. The NAM News Network article quotes Stanley Cheah as saying, "In 1996, I opened three restaurants, followed by another three in 1997 and three more in 1998." The article also says "While the 'Nyonya' is Cheah's flagship restaurant, his other restaurants run under the 'Penang' franchise". So the 1996 restaurant might have been Nyonya since it's Cheah's flagship restaurant. An article in the Chicago Reader says, "But by the late 80s, [Cindy] Cheah figured American palates were ready for Malaysian cuisine. She and several of her ten siblings opened the first Penang in Flushing, New York, a neighborhood with a large concentration of Indian and Chinese immigrants." This indicates that the first Penang restaurant could have been opened in the late 1980s in Flushing, but the source doesn't say this. Cindy Cheah could have "figured American palates were ready for Malaysian cuisine" in the late 1980s but opened the Flushing Penang restaurant with several of her ten siblings later in the 1990s.

Cunard (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks article is up. Do you think it is better as Penang Malaysian & Thai Cuisine or Penang (restaurant chain)? Valoem talk contrib 13:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Good work on the article! Based on the reliable sources I listed here, the WP:COMMONNAME of the restaurant is "Penang". The Penang title's WP:PRIMARYNAME is the state in Malyasia, so the restaurant's article title needs to be disambiguated. Wikipedia:Article titles#Disambiguation lists "natural disambiguation" (Penang Malaysian & Thai Cuisine) and "parenthetical disambiguation" (Penang (restaurant chain)) as acceptable ways of disambiguating titles. I don't have a preference for either title.

Cunard (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank it has been moved to Penang (restaurant chain). Valoem talk contrib 03:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Survey regarding the community guidelines for my master thesis[edit]

Hello Cunard, my name is Robert Wintermeyer and I am currently conducting surveys in various social media platforms as part of my master's thesis. The focus is on the community guidelines of the respective social platform and the acceptance by its users. Of course, the data provided will not be passed on to anybody and will only be used for the master's thesis. All responses are confidential. I already read the 'Ethically researching Wikipedia' article. In the 'best practices' section is mentioned that it's best to 'consult with and gain the consent of the community before beginning'. Since I'm not sure how exactly I am supposed to gain the consent of the community before beginning, I wanted to contact an admin before I begin. I was not sure if the post is something for the admin noticeboard. I would begin to ask user for their participation by posting on their talk pages with information similar to the suggested text in the 'Ethically researching Wikipedia' article. I would be thankful for any feedback on how I may conduct my research or if my suggested approach would be okay.

Thank you very much for your time! Kind regards, Robert Wintermeyer--Rwinterm (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rwinterm (talk · contribs). Editors have provided good advice at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2019 January 24#Survey regarding the community guidelines for my master thesis. You should inform anyone you are doing research on about what are you doing. This can be through adding a note on User:Rwinterm, which you have done. I recommend adding your research project to meta:Research:Projects.

One way to "consult with and gain the consent of the community before beginning" would be posting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard to get editors' feedback. Since at this time, you are only asking editors to answer a survey, I think posting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard to gain consent is not required (though you can still do so if you want). If your research involved your making edits to Wikipedia or your asking other editors to make edits to Wikipedia, then I would advise consulting editors on the noticeboard beforehand.

meta:Research:FAQ is a good resource for answering questions you might have about conducting your research. If you have further questions, you can email the Wikimedia Foundation at research-internal@lists.wikimedia.org.

Cunard (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cunard (talk · contribs), thank you for your feedback and the links to further information. I think I will make use of the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard --Rwinterm (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Monster in the Mirror[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 28 January 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Monster in the Mirror, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1991 music video for the Sesame Street song "Monster in the Mirror" featured 25 celebrities, including Robin Williams, Whoopi Goldberg, and The Simpsons characters? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Monster in the Mirror. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Monster in the Mirror), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Managing by wire[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 19 February 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Managing by wire, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that SAP SE, Aetna, Mrs. Fields Original Cookies, and Brooklyn Union Gas have all been managed by wire? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Managing by wire. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Managing by wire), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Quick Question.[edit]

Cunard, how is that you are able to post consistently at WP:ANRFC? What's your secret to finding all those RfC's to close?? –MJLTalk 04:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Recently expired RfCs can be found in the contributions of Legobot (talk · contribs), which removes RfC templates and RfCs when they expire. Thank you for your quality work at WP:ANRFC such as your closes here and here where you explain your closes in detail. I appreciate your very good work.

Cunard (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

You do? Most people have told me to stop closing RfCs at this point. (Also, thank you for that answer!) –MJLTalk 05:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I reviewed your talk page and found concerns about non-RfC activities. I have not closely reviewed the incidents so have not formed an opinion about them. I did not notice any concerns about your RfC closes. Your RfC close at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 95#RfC: Should the lead be updated to reflect that Trump has continued to make false or misleading statements throughout his campaign and presidency? received strong praise from two editors here and your RfC close of Talk:Albania–Greece relations#RfC received strong praise from two other editors. Closing RfCs with painstakingly detailed closing statements explaining your decision helps RfC participants understand and possibly accept the decision even when they disagree with the outcome. As long as your mentor, Swarm, doesn't object, I strongly encourage you to continue closing RfCs since several other editors and I find your work very valuable.

Cunard (talk) 06:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Cunard, thank gosh!! I've been under the assumption that closing RfCs were like closing XfDs and are a no-go for me. Until Swarm contacts me to say otherwise, I will be closing the noncontroversial requests at WP:ANRFC for now. Woo hoo! –MJLTalk 17:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisting RfCs[edit]

Hi, when relisting RfCs, such as Template talk:Asia topic#Template-protected edit request on 17 January 2019, and you use exactly the same RfC category parameters as were there previously, it's perfectly safe to restore the |rfcid= parameter provided that you use exactly the same value. So, since Legobot removed {{rfc|hist|pol|soc|rfcid=1567593}} you could have reinstated it in exactly the same form. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64 (talk · contribs). Thank you for the good work you do at WP:ANRFC. I remove the |rfcid= parameter because I want Legobot to notify editors subscribed to the Wikipedia:Feedback request service that the RfC needs more participation. Does the bot still notify editors after the relist if the same |rfcid= parameter is used? Cunard (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
You may have a point there, Legobot doesn't send more than one FRS notification to a given user name / rfcid combination. So if the same rfcid is retained, the only FRS notifications will be to those users who weren't notified first time around. So resetting the rfcid can result in some users being notified a second time; but some don't like that, for example Maproom (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. I will include the |rfcid= parameter in my relists. Cunard (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

AN/RfC[edit]

Hi. For a number of closure requests, you wrote Relisted. Marking as {{done}}. for the request, but did not actually set the |done parameter to done. Was this an oversight? Also, why use a template link, rather than the template itself? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this was an oversight, which I have corrected. Thank you for your good work at WP:ANRFC in explaining your closes such as here and here in detail. Cunard (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Unused categories RfC closure[edit]

Hello, Cunard,

I'm writing about your closure of an RfC on Wikipedia talk:Special:UnusedCategories in November 2016. The result was that redirect categories were supposed to be removed from the Unused Categories list but they still are. Can you recall what action you took after closing the RfC to make this happen? It looks like this RfC will need some follow-up taken. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 20:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Liz (talk · contribs). I did not take any action after closing the RfC. In RfCs such as this one where I do not know how to implement the consensus, I leave it to the RfC participants to enact the result. Cunard (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:AFD[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg
An article you created or have contributed to has been nominated for deletion
Hello!

Contents

Click the image for an important message.
Like, it's April Fools' Day today, you know?
So...
 

Keep

 

on

 

keepin'

 

on!    North America1000 09:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

How do you do it?[edit]

Cunard, I am regularly impressed by your source-hunting abilities at AfD, and I think I've learned a thing or two by looking at the sources you find. Still, your source-finding ability is almost unmatched for articles others come up short on. Do you have a consolidated list anywhere of the techniques you use to find articles? MarginalCost (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi MarginalCost (talk · contribs). Thank you for your kind words and interesting question. I have different approaches of source searching for each article topic. In general, I do many Google searches that combine the name of the subject being discussed with other key words. I do these searches on Google Search, Google News Archive, Google Books, and databases like Wikipedia:Newspapers.com, Wikipedia:EBSCO, and NewsBank. For example, if a company is at AfD, I search for "company name + product name", "company name + founder's name", "company name + year of founding", and "company name + location where it is based". As I find out more information about a company through reading news articles and its own website, I make a list of additional search terms I can use with the company's name. In many cases, this helps me find sources that other editors do not find in their more brief searches.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China Windpower Group was about a publicly listed company. To find the analyst reports about the company, I did several Google searches that combined the company's name or former name ("China Windpower Group" and "Concord New Energy") with the search terms "analyst" and "report". I also searched for "the company's name + its ticker symbol, 182" since analyst reports and business press generally include the ticket symbol.

For Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former employees of McKinsey & Company, I did several Google searches that combined the company's name with the terms "former employees" and "alumni".

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eliot Cutler was about a man who had run for office twice. Nearly all of the news articles were about his runs for office. It would be help establish that Cutler was notable if there were sources about him that did not discuss his runs for office. I found an article that discussed his work in the Jimmy Carter US presidential administration. I then searched for "Eliot Cutler + Carter" and found more sources about Cutler. Other searches I tried were "Eliot Cutler + Melanie Stewart (his wife's name)" and "Eliot Cutler + Deerfield (the private boarding school he attended)".

For Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of M*A*S*H cast members, I did a search for MASH + different combinations of two cast members from the show. If two cast members were mentioned in a source, then there would be a greater likelihood that the source is discussing "M*A*S*H cast members" as a set which would show the list passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists.

I hope this helps you in your searches for sources at AfD! Feel free to reach out to me if you want another pair of eyes looking for sources for a particular AfD.

Cunard (talk) 09:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to know how you are able to copy/paste from Google Books. This would help in terms of article creation, in terms of copying small amounts of content into a text editor, to then rewrite the information in an entirely new manner (e.g. with absolutely no plagiarism, close paraphrasing, etc., of course). This would make life easier, rather than having to shuffle from webpage to text editor constantly when devising a Wikipedia article. North America1000 09:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs). Yes, that would make life much easier for both of us. Unfortunately, I manually type quotes from Google Books as I don't think there is a way to copy and paste material from non-public domain books. RoySmith mentioned a method of copying text from Google Books at User talk:Cunard/Archive 11#Question that works for public domain books only. Cunard (talk) 09:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the prompt reply. So, you've been asked this before. Yep, the old school manual typing still works, although it is time consuming! Thanks for the archive link as well, which I have made a note of. North America1000 09:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:ANRFC. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Replied. Cunard (talk) 05:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC on List of Photographers[edit]

Thanks for your recent closure of many parts of the RfC on this list.

I was hoping that you could independently close the section "Should date of birth and date of death be added to entries?" I was an involved party, and so probably should not have marked it as resolved in the first place. I think it would be best if an uninvolved third party approves and signs the closure of that section. Qono (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. I skimmed that section of the RfC and am unsure how to close it so have left it open for another editor at WP:ANRFC to review and close it. Cunard (talk) 09:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Ronald Read (philanthropist)[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 25 April 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ronald Read (philanthropist), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ronald Read, whose last job was working 17 years as a J. C. Penney janitor, left US$1.2 million to his local library and $4.8 million to the hospital where he died? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ronald Read (philanthropist). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ronald Read (philanthropist)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for a good one! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

And thank you for a good review at Template:Did you know nominations/Ronald Read (philanthropist), Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 09:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Precious[edit]

find sources

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Thank you for quality articles such as Ronald Read (philanthropist), Working with Lemons and Little Red Wagon, for service from 2008, for dealing with speedy deletions, for help with finding sources, for "I'd rather remain a non-admin because I prefer making content contributions over doing admin tasks", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I am very touched to be a recipient of Precious. This is a lovely surprise and is incredibly kind of you. Thank you, Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 05:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited PureVPN, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Android (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

hi, you're invited to an RfC discussion regarding Bruno Bettelheim article[edit]

As a past contributor to the article's Talk page, you're invited to a Request for Comment (RfC) discussion on the article's lead sentence. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bruno_Bettelheim#rfc_7DDF8CC

RfC Close[edit]

Thanks for this close, and particularly for noting that it can absolutely be re-opened/re-examined if better/more sources are produced. That pretty perfectly captures my feelings about what I know is a sensitive topic, and I think it was good to get it in writing as part of the close. Grandpallama (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Grandpallama (talk · contribs), for the kind note! I wrote an extended closing statement that noted there is no prejudice against further discussion if anything has changed since I agree this is a sensitive object. Cunard (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks (from David in DC)[edit]

I've been away from the project for a while but got a notice that you'd quoted one of my rare moments of cogency at a current AfD. Thank you for the smile. David in DC (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

David in DC (talk · contribs), at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with the longest marriages (2nd nomination), your argument for renaming has just convinced an AfD participant to switch from "delete" to "rename". It is good to see you editing more, and I hope you become more active as long as you have the time and interest! We need more of your "rare moments of cogency". :) Cunard (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Long Marriage list[edit]

If you proceed with a rename and creation of a "List of long marriages" article, you may wish to consult my sandbox where I've preserved the list for such an eventuality. schetm (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Schetm (talk · contribs). There is also a copy of the article at Draft:List of people with long marriages after I requested undeletion. Cunard (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Wrong close on Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949)[edit]

It seem more people say A the svg map instead of B the jpg map at Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949)#Rfc on the primary map in the infobox. Matthew hk (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for the mistake. I copied the wrong line and image link when I wrote the close. I have corrected the close. Cunard (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Your close of a Bitcoin Cash RfC[edit]

Hi, and thank you for your efforts when closing Talk:Bitcoin Cash#RfC about Bcash altname. I want to ask you, though, where did you address the problem that the variant "B" you chose as "having consensus" consists of two parts, and it does not cite any source confirming its most prominent, since presented as the first, part. TIA for your answer. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

That is a good point. Thank you for raising this issue with me. I have revised the RfC close. Let me know if you have any further questions. Cunard (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your work on RfCs :) starship.paint (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Starship.paint (talk · contribs)! :) Cunard (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The list wikia exist[edit]

You can export the article at Special:Export then import it at https://list.fandom.com/wiki/Special:Import as thousands of others have done to save list articles from deletion on Wikipedia. If the file size is too big, you have to break it into pieces first if you want to get the entire article history. I just went ahead and did the most recent one. https://list.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_people_in_long_marriages Looks like some templates are needed over there. Dream Focus 19:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for preserving the list of people in long marriages in the Fandom wiki, Dream Focus (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Serpentza Lives in California now[edit]

Hi Serpentza does not Live in Shenzhen anymore, he reside in San Diego, USA, Please read his patreon page https://www.patreon.com/SerpentZA, Big Big Cultural Challenges ahead, his instagram, twitters, where he confirms with followers he stays in Southern California, USA, pictures of him living in USA, but his wife confirms on her channel also First he discussed in youtube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J35AxY1pLE (see at 11:30 time)

Latest videos by him, instagram, and Patreon all confirm he is in California including wife channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXFUJBn-uVw7NuBcDu-byFw/videos— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.121.141 (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I was not the editor who reverted the change to the article saying he now lives in San Diego. Cunard (talk) 06:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

List of ...[edit]

I think it's OK now to submit. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I replied here. Thank you for your help on the draft. Cunard (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of people in long marriages (July 17)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Cunard! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of people in long marriages has been accepted[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
List of people in long marriages, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, AngusWOOF (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Winston Sterzel Serpentza Residence[edit]

Thanks, can you also edit/remove this line? He was based in Shenzhen in the Guangdong province of China

He is either in the USA, or just remove the line completely.

Thanks ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.223.89 (talkcontribs) 10:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Sterzel

I had changed the sentence from "Winston Sterzel is ... based in Shenzhen in the Guangdong province of China" to "He was based in Shenzhen in the Guangdong province of China" (which means he used to be based there but no longer is based there). I would like to retain mention in the article that he had been based in Shenzhen since his activity there is central to his notability. Is there another wording that would make it more clear that he is no longer there? Cunard (talk) 10:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

See Interview Here:

1:22:45 seconds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYA2BDnnfGI

Interview: "Do either have you have plans to move back to Asia long term or you think its the US for you?"

Serpentza: Well here's the thing, people seem to think we have kind up and left, and gone to the US, and we're never coming back. Its not like that, the reason we've decided to setup an office here in the US, is so that we can have a stable place to travel from

The kind of things we talk about, it's unfeasible for us to stay in China. Number 1, we couldnt do this live show in China, because we wouldn't have fast enough internet, and would be blocked.

Second of all, we have the very real possibility, the police would come, just break in and shut us down, and detain us. We don't want that, We want the freedom to be able to talk what we want to talk about. We want the freedom to be able to travel around. So we're going to be going to Asia a lot. We're going to be travelling a lot more now, going to different places. Because we want to expand, we want go to India, we want to go to Japan, Thailand, South Korea, and do what we what we do, and do what we did in China

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.223.89 (talkcontribs) 10:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Would you post this on Talk:Winston Sterzel with a proposal about text should be added or changed? WP:ABOUTSELF may allow usage of this source, but the community may not support including this information since it is sourced to an interview published on YouTube instead of an independent reliable source. Cunard (talk) 10:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to post yourself, since you have high number of points. For some reason, Wikipedia admin even after delivering interview, delete this as source. Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.223.89 (talkcontribs) 11:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the article is currently accurate after this change. I do not know what else is proposed to be added to the article which is why I recommend you make a proposal on the talk page. Cunard (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Audi Q3[edit]

That RfC shouldn't have closed, the grey Audi Q3 image is already used on the article. It was already solved by some other user. I can't revert it because of my topic ban for reverting or adding photos I taken myself. Please revert it back. It was fine as it was and this was a big misunderstanding.

In a nutshell, some uninvolved editor managed to break the tension that was going over the infobox picture dispute [8] but the RfC was never closed and now this user closed it and restore picture when it shouldn't of because it was fine as it was. --Vauxford (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I updated the RfC close. Cunard (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
No no no, it was the blue Audi Q3 that was there before the RfC was created. [9] This version was fine because it based off uninvolved user edits. The grey on the main infobox was the one that all users reached a consensus on. The blue car on the second generation was meant to stay, that edit was done by the Arabic user with no dispute over it. I'm tempted to just revert it back to the version before the conflict and the RfC happened but I don't want to violated my topic ban. I shouldn't of created the RfC in the first place now it ended being super complicated. --Vauxford (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I already restore the version done by uninvolved user. --Vauxford (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Here is an extract of my RfC close:

There is no consensus about whether to use the grey car or the blue car.

File:Audi Q3 45 TFSI Quattro, Paris Motor Show 2018, IMG 0448.jpg (orange car) was added to the article on 8 October 2018 and added to the infobox on 17 January 2019.

File:Audi Q3 1Y7A4914.jpg (grey car) was added to the infobox on 20 April 2019.

File:2019 Audi Q3 S Line 35 TDi S-A 2.0 Front.jpg (blue car) was added to the infobox on 25 May 2019. An edit war began over which photo to use.

Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus says in part:

Discussions sometimes result in no consensus to take or not take an action. What happens next depends on the context:

  • In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it.
"[T]he version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit" is either File:Audi Q3 45 TFSI Quattro, Paris Motor Show 2018, IMG 0448.jpg (orange car), which had been in the article three months, or File:Audi Q3 1Y7A4914.jpg (grey car), which had been in the article for one month before being disputed.

...

My edit made it so that the image was used twice in the article: the main infobox and the infobox of the "Second generation (2018–present)" section. I therefore will replace the grey car's photo with File:Audi Q3 45 TFSI Quattro, Paris Motor Show 2018, IMG 0448.jpg (orange car) since it is the other photo that could be considered "the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit".

Your edit today replaced File:Audi Q3 45 TFSI Quattro, Paris Motor Show 2018, IMG 0448.jpg (orange car) with File:2019 Audi Q3 S Line 35 TDi S-A 2.0 Front.jpg (blue car), which you had added to the infobox on 25 May 2019. You took the photo of the blue car, so your restoring of the photo is a violation of your topic ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1014#A path forward. If you disagree with the close, please challenge it at WP:AN per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Cunard (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Cunard I don't think so since, before I was trying to replace the main infobox with the blue car but it kept getting reverted. Then a talk page discussion was opened, then the images were swapped by uninvolved user. That edit I did wans't done by me and my last proper edit involving the photos taken by me was 26th May 2019. The dispute was solved because someone swapped the images so the grey car was in the main infobox and the blue car was in the second generation infobox, matching the rear but it never got logged or discussed on the RfC.
[10] Before the uninvolved made the problem solving revision. The user replaced the old infobox photo, replaced it with the grey car photo from the second generation infobox and added the blue car (taken by me) in the second generation infobox, no conflict or confusion since until you closed the RfC. --Vauxford (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Cunard, please see User talk:MJL#Audi Q3MJLTalk 00:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Hopefully, me writing that created an edit conflict for Vauxford before they dig their grave even moreso. –MJLTalk 00:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I advise starting a new discussion about whether the blue car photo should replace the orange car photo in the infobox of the "Second generation (2018–present)" section since the grey photo cannot be used there since it is in the main infobox. Cunard (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Unbox Therapy[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 12 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Unbox Therapy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Unbox Therapy sparked Apple's "Bendgate" controversy when host Lewis Hilsenteger used only his hands to bend his iPhone 6 Plus? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Unbox Therapy. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Unbox Therapy), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Chase Koch[edit]

FYI I just restored the article on Chase Koch, which had become a redirect as a result of an AfD in 2016. You voted at the AFD with a significant comment, so I thought I would drop you a note. Three years has passed and he is very clearly notable.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi ThatMontrealIP. Thank you for restoring the article on Chase Koch and letting me know. I agree that he is clearly notable now. Cunard (talk) 02:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes I agree. To be clear you appeared to be on the keep side at AfD so I thought you might be interested from that angle.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I am interested so appreciate your notifying me. I added some sources to the article's talk page (including a 2019 Simon & Schuster book that provides 27 pages of coverage about him) and made some edits to the article. Cunard (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Legobot removing ID from RfC[edit]

Hey Cunard, you seem to know well how the RfC process works, so thought I'd ask you. We keep getting User:Legobot removing the ID of a RfC that has not yet been assessed. Do you know how that can be fixed? Thanks :-) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Stefka Bulgaria. Legobot removes the {{rfc}} template when 30 days have passed since the first timestamp in the discussion (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Duration). To restore the tag until the RfC is closed, you can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Restarting an RfC and add the line
<!-- RFCBot Ignore Expired -->
before the {{rfc}} template. I recommend listing the discussion for assessment of consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Pinging Redrose64 (talk · contribs) in case you have anything to correct or add since you are more familiar with Legobot than I am. Cunard (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Legobot looks for the next timestamp after the {{rfc}} template, and adds thirty days to that. If the result is a time earlier than now, Legobot removes the {{rfc}}. Legobot then ensures that RfCs still bearing a {{rfc}} are present in the RfC listings indicated by the categories - for example, a RfC with {{rfc|pol|hist|reli}} will be listed at WP:RFC/POL, WP:RFC/HIST and WP:RFC/RELI. It also ensures that those no longer bearing a {{rfc}} are removed from all RfC listings. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Audi Q3 (agian)[edit]

I'm looking back at the super tedious mess of a discussion over photos on the Audi Q3 articles. The RfC for the Second generation front image seem to have better consensus over the grey car image, yet it got replaced with the (I think) problematic orange car image. I put a "Alternative photo" in the discussion and 3 people prefer that over one person wanting to keep it as the grey one, yet none of the change was done and you gave a confusing reason to close the RfC. [11] --Vauxford (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

── Previous discussion about the RfC close here. Please see my extended rationale here:

I did not give more weight to the uninvolved editors in my close. I gave them the same weight as the involved editors. Which image to use in the infobox is based on what editors' subjectively think is a better choice. I found Sable232's subjective argument to be reasonable, "They're both less than stellar, unfortunately. The image of the gray one is taken from too high of a perspective - it appears as if the photographer was standing on something when taking it. Otherwise, the angle is good, and it has a better background, so I'd stick with that one."

The alternative photo was proposed on 27 May 2019. It did not change the minds of the involved editors Charles01 and Alexander-93. Later on, in the RfC, NickCT suggested using the orange car photo or the grey car photo (each of the photos had at different times been in the article section's infobox before the dispute started). I consider NickCT's rationale, "There is very little meaningful difference in terms of quality between these two images" and "Given there's no real difference with between the image quality, we should probably just give preference to the editor who had thier image here first, which seems to be Alexander-93" to be a reasonable argument.

Vauxford, John M Wolfson, Ybsone, and 2800:810:46F:81A5:B508:7264:2AE1:3890 preferred the alternative blue car photo. I gave less weight to the arguments made by Ybsone (who did not provide a rationale) and 2800:810:46F:81A5:B508:7264:2AE1:3890 (per WP:MEATPUPPET, which says, "In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion.").

This means that there is a roughly equal number of users supporting the grey car photo and the blue car photo. Because which photo to use is a matter of subjective judgment, I found a clear lack of consensus to choose a specific photo.

Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus says, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." I found that both the orange photo and the grey photo could be considered in "the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". See the analysis here about when and how long each of these photos were in the section's infobox. I chose to restore the grey photo since it had more support than the orange photo. But since the grey photo is already used in the main infobox, I chose the orange photo instead.

Regarding "I think defaulting to the orange car rather than just what the article was before the close is an odd choice for a no-consensus close", the orange car photo had been in the article before the dispute started. I did not default to "what [was in] the article was before the close" because that would encourage editors to edit war to their preferred version of the article before requesting closure of a "no consensus" RfC.

Regarding "everyone seems to agree that the orange one would be a poor choice", I found that only Vauxford and John M Wolfson spoke against it while NickCT was fine with it.

As I noted in the revised RfC close, the situation has changed significantly since the discussion started in that the grey car photo no longer is in contention for the section's infobox since it is now used in the main infobox. I therefore recommend starting a new RfC to discuss which photo should be used in the section's infobox so that editors can make a clear choice between the orange car photo and the blue car photo. I restored the orange car photo since it is the status quo photo, but this is without prejudice against a new consensus determining a different photo (such as one of the blue car photos) should be used instead. I hope this longer explanation of my thought process helps.

Cunard (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

As I noted, "I therefore recommend starting a new RfC to discuss which photo should be used in the section's infobox so that editors can make a clear choice between the orange car photo and the blue car photo. I restored the orange car photo since it is the status quo photo, but this is without prejudice against a new consensus determining a different photo (such as one of the blue car photos) should be used instead." Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)