This is an archive of past discussions about User:Cunard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
When you do your book citations on AfD, are you actually manually typing everything from google books or is there a faster way, because google books does not allow me to copy sections. Valoemtalkcontrib17:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, RoySmith (talk·contribs)! I appreciate the screenshot, which helped me find the text selection tool on public domain books like this. This is a neat feature that will save me a lot of typing in the future when I copy text from public domain books. But the text selection tool doesn't appear for me for non-public domain books like this one, so I think it only works on public domain books. Cunard (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Andrew Davidson (talk·contribs), for the recommendation! OneNote would be useful in clipping sources I want to save for personal use. But for AfDs and DRVs, I think typing still will be needed. I generally want to have the sources' text on the AfD or DRV so editors can see the quotes on one page without having to click on multiple links. Cunard (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Old thread, I know, but there are sources for book citations: WorldCat - when you get to a page for an individual book, there is a citation button at the top right, and a choice of citation styles (MLA, Chicago, etc.). For wiki-formatted citations, the Open Library has a link for a wiki-formatted citation on the books it has. It is missing the most recent books (last 3-5 years, I'm guessing) but has everything that Google scanned plus 1902-2014 from the Library of Congress. Not everything, and if you're already on G-Books it's another search, but handy at times. LaMona (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
2016
Michael Q. Schmidttalkbackis wishing you a Happy New Year! This message celebrates the season, promotes good cheer, and hopefully makes your day a little brighter. So please spread cheer by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be a good friend, someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, or just some random person. (click for sound
Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?
Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Deep Knowledge Ventures, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fund. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
But I very much appreciate the work you did attempting rescue of Involuntary Celibacy and your ping today on Sandella. If I can ever be of assistance, please call on me. I would not consider such a call canvassing, because I've specifically asked you to do so. Been here ten years and I'm still always meeting someone new (to me). Thanks again. BusterD (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I'll admit I was wrong there. I think your expansion may be sufficient enough to consider listing the article for DYK. I think the DYK hook is pretty obvious. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
D'Amico,William P. , Jr. "Comments on the Flight Stability of the XM736 8-Inch Binary Projectile", (Abstract/Citation), Ballistic Research Laboratory, October 1982, accessed January 3, 2009.
Hi there. I noticed this nomination has been stale. BlueMoonset had issues that it wasn't at a five-fold expansion. Have you made any contributions to fulfill this since then? If you have, we can request a new review. If not, I'll give a second opinion on the matter to see whether it straight-up fails. JollyΩJanner04:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
On 3 February 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Love You Baba, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Guinness World Records named Saugat Bista, the seven-year-old director of Love You Baba, the "youngest director of a professionally made feature length film"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Love You Baba. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), 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.
I was wondering if you might be interested in writing an article on Merrill Edge, I have some trouble finding number of employees, but this investment firm is definitely notable distinct from Merrill Lynch. Valoemtalkcontrib20:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
To lure customers to Merrill Edge, Bank of America recently started testing videoconferencing kiosks at bank branches in the Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., areas. Merrill associates in Arizona, Florida, and New Jersey dispense financial advice on the kiosks' monitors. Branches advertise Merrill Edge on their windows and ATMs, which doesn't sit well with brokers who don't like seeing the Merrill brand diluted. In a December 2009 internal memo aimed at dispelling fears over the integration of the banking and brokerage operations, Krawcheck had to declare: "No, we're not converting our wealth management branches into ATMs."
On 15 February 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Masa Fukuda, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Meridian School alumnus Masa Fukuda, the founder of One Voice Children's Choir, writes and arranges music from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. in his basement studio, sleeping only three or four hours a day? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Masa Fukuda. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), 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.
On 15 February 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Meridian School (Utah), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Meridian School alumnus Masa Fukuda, the founder of One Voice Children's Choir, writes and arranges music from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. in his basement studio, sleeping only three or four hours a day? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), 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.
Would you be so kind as to take a look at an AfC draft that has aged 21 days? This is a paid work, I was hired after the original editor gave up in frustration and got himself banned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:World_Head_of_Family_Sokeship_Council
The article is about a long lived international martial arts organization and there is a essay on guidance for notability on such articles here:[1]
I'm hoping to get a neutral review before the AfC queue gets backlogged again and "the group" goes through everything heavy-handedly.
Thanks so much for all the work you did on it, the discussion is getting spread out all over the place. I went ahead and listed it at WP:DRV as suggested. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016_February 17 Be sure to ping me on the AfD's that interest you, I haven't been following them much lately. 009o9 (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I thought you might be interested in writing an article on this notable company. Winmark Forbes, I was planning to write one on John Morgan the company CEO. Also do you know how to search for sources in Korea? I was wondering if you could find additional sources on 1980 Uiju earthquake. Valoemtalkcontrib15:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I'll take a look at Winmark Corporation. I'm not sure how to search for sources in Korean for 1980 Uiju earthquake. Cunard (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
On 16 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Merrill Edge, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that because Bank of America customers who invest less than $250,000 usually do not receive counsel from Merrill Edge employees, the discount brokerage service plans to offer customers robo-advisors? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Merrill Edge. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), 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.
It's bad enough listing archived debates with nothing of merit to assess, but listing stuff already on the other admin noticeboard?> Srsly? Please don't do this. The backlogs will never get fixed if they are bloated out with unnecessary shit. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I list admin noticeboard discussions at WP:ANRFC when they are ready for closure so the discussions are not forgotten.
For regular maintenance of WP:ANRFC. I imagine it's a thankless job; we who do the actual closing get the thanks (and the complaints, but let's not talk about that). Let me make it a little less thankless. Thank you! GRuban (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words, GRuban (talk·contribs)! And thank you for your hard work closing RfCs at WP:ANRFC. Your openness to feedback here and your willingness to provide extensive rationales in response to editors' queries here are impressive and greatly appreciated and make you an exemplary RfC closer. I hope you keep up the excellent work at WP:ANRFC as long as you enjoy doing it! Cunard (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey again, it seems a lot of my article have been up for deletion, I was wondering if there are additional notable sources which can be added, not sure if this GNG, but it appears that even those in favor of deletion stated there are four reliable sources. I have no issues if you believe this should be delete, but your opinion which it comes to true GNG, I know this encyclopedia has a tendency to be bias against fringe topics. Thanks Valoemtalkcontrib18:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, RoySmith. I am honored by your offer but must decline. Because admins spend time closing discussions and other mopping tasks, they must necessarily spend less time writing articles and participating in AfDs and DRVs. As I noted at User talk:Cunard/Archive 10#Adminship?, I prefer to remain a non-admin for the reasons discussed in Kodster's essay Wikipedia:I don't want to be an administrator. I prefer to write articles and find sources for the AfDs and DRVs I participate in. My purpose for editing Wikipedia is grounded in these activities. Although admin's mopping tasks are important, they would take time away from the activities I prefer spending my limited Wikipedia time on. I'll leave the janitorial tasks like closing deeply divided DRVs like Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 March 30#Good Shepherd English School to admins like you. ;) Thank you again.
But as an administrator you can see deleted articles, which is an advantage in DRVs and content development sometimes, isn't it? Could you take the mop but never do the admin work...but maybe then it would be too hard to say No. :( --doncram06:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, I understand where you're coming from, and respect your decision. If you ever change your mind, you know where to find me. -- RoySmith(talk)12:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Another paid work Draft:Wendy Newman, subject is completely notable, but I'm getting the run around in AfC (wholesale declines when the backlog triggers an alert I'd guess). I edited to the reviewer's tastes, that reviewer has ignored my comments. I also took a review (and advice) from another paid editor, but she does not edit in the article space. The subject came to me first, so I don't think there's any problem with the name being salted (thanks again for your help lot on the last one).[2]
If you don't feel comfortable putting it through, or see flaws in my writing, perhaps a comment for me or the next AfC reviewer? Thanks Again! 009o9Disclosure(Talk)06:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the edits and the review, I uncovered the categories and made sure it isn't an orphan. I hope it wasn't an imposition on your time. Thanks Again! 009o9Disclosure(Talk)06:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Cunard. Would you mind trying to exercise a bit more discretion when listing RfCs at WP:ANRFC? If a discussion has a clear outcome, there's no reason for formal closure. Something like this or this doesn't require closure unless a WP:POINTy editor comes along and demands it. When you last listed RfCs at ANRFC on the 8th, you listed at least 48 discussions (not counting any that have already been archived), which makes it very difficult to find discussions that actually require closure. ~ RobTalk11:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I disagree that there is no reason for closes for "consensus is clear" RfCs. It is helpful to record the consensus of those formal discussions like is done for "consensus is clear" DRVs and XfDs. While I list RfCs at WP:ANRFC I sometimes close those I am comfortable with closing. "Consensus is clear" RfCs are very easy to close, which I havedone for the two you mentioned. Cunard (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I encourage your participation at the AN thread about the long-term sustainability of ANRFC. ~ RobTalk14:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Alex Gilbert
Hello Cunard,
It has been awhile with the Alex Gilbert draft. New sources have come to light and there is on going discussion with them being reliable or not. The article itself now has 29 sources. Can you please have a look at all of the sources (some of them are in Russian), and please tell me what is wrong with this? Yes there is independent sources there but some are in Russian. Yes some talk about a single event but the coverage of the sources range from 3 years or so. Can you please please have a look and let me know on any advice or if you can review it. Thank You --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
You and I previously discussed Alex Gilbert at User talk:Cunard/Archive 10#Alex Gilbert in December 2015. At the time, Ymblanter (talk·contribs) thought that the sources pointed to Alex Gilbert's being a WP:ONEEVENT. This month, Ymblanter wrote, "He is borderline notable. Since there is no specific notability criteria, what applies here is WP:GNG. If it gets to WP:AfD I would probably vote keep, but I am not sure it would survive. Let us see first of your help desk request gets any response." You asked Ymblanter, "Are you able to unsalt the article? Or review it yourself?" Ymblanter replied, "No, I had rather bad experiences recently, and I currently prefer other people to do it."
Hobit (talk·contribs) wrote, "Try to move it as fully-formed as possible into mainspace with the new sources and see how it goes. It should be immune to a WP:CSD#G4 with the new (and solid) sources, and any AfD, IMO, doesn't have a leg to stand on. Let me know when you've done so and let me know if it does go to AfD."
Looking at the draft, I'm not so sure that the subject isn't notable and therefore maybe the conclusions of the most AfC are wrong (which to me suggests a wikipedia process problem which I have no idea how to resolve. How does one judge the conclusions of a an AfC vs a AfD process?). The normal practice of WP:GNG requires us to find WP:RS from independent secondary sources to give notability. This HuffPo report was written by a staff reporter and is fairly extensive. Also this SBS report, this Northern Advocate report, this Mirror report and so on. This all seems to me to enough give notability.
Writ Keeper (talk·contribs) closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Gilbert (TV Presenter) as "The result was speedily deleted as an unattributed intra-wiki copy by a non-author, and thus a copyright violation, without prejudice towards the original draft itself." Writ Keeper, do you have any advice for DmitryPopovRU about how to proceed?
Thanks Cunard. Firstly Alex Gilbert (TV Presenter) was made by a different account which copied the draft Draft:Alex Gilbert I was working on. All I want to know is, can Draft:Alex Gilbert go into the mainspace? Not as a TV Presenter. He is not a TV Presenter. He is an adoption advocate. The sources are all about adoption. One more thing can someone put this into the mainspace? Then we can see what will happen. That will decide the articles fate, instead of sitting around as a Draft with comments being thrown all over the place over its notability. The article does have independent sources, it does have coverage and they are reliable. The article Alex Gilbert is currently salted over a deletion discussion that was for a seperate issue. See [3] as a School Boy Rapper and [4] as this issue 'Non-notable cinematographer. Almost none of the references are independent and the story of meeting his parents is covered by WP:BLP1E. Cinematographers can be notable'. Once again this was 2nd nomination was back in July 2014, many more sources have arose since then with more coverage which goes over the WP:BLP1E issue. His I'm Adopted organisation was created in 2015. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I continue to believe this easily meets our inclusion guidelines. The right way forward, IMO, is to get it unprotected (which it clearly should be) and move the draft to mainspace. It's not an A7 target and I think it would be kept at AfD. The problem is that due to it's history and the fairly small number of people at DRV, I don't think it would make it at DRV. Hobit (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Hobit. Are we able to hopefully and finally get this draft to the main space? This has been going on for a long time. I would like to see an AfD, really because I believe it would keep too. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I certainly have neither any objection nor special insight--as Dmitry pointed out, the AfD that I closed was about some copying that someone else did; that specific AfD shouldn't have any influence over whatever Dmitry decides to do now. Writ Keeper⚇♔19:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello Writ Keeper, are we then able to get this Draft to the Mainspace in this case? The Article Alex Gilbert is salted so it is unable to do so. Then I will request for it to be reviewed one last time. Is that a good idea? If it goes to AfD, it goes to AfD. Thanks --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
If by "review" you mean deletion review, then no, I wouldn't recommend that. Deletion review is about whether the original close of the AfD was correct, not a venue to discuss whether a new version of the article is now good enough; it's basically a review of procedure, not substance. It's not necessary if you've already got a draft that you've been writing yourself, so instead I'd just say go for it.
If by "review" you mean Articles for Creation review, well, that's kind of up to you. It's not *mandatory*, so it's really only if you feel it'd be helpful. But if that's what you want to do, then you should get it done while it's still in the Draft space; AfC is all about checking stuff before it gets into mainspace, so once stuff is already in mainspace, AfC loses its purpose.
In any event, I see that Hobit, at least, is confident that the subject is notable enough, so that's a good sign. I'd take a look at it myself, but short of any very obvious problems like BLP or something, I'd be happy to defer to their opinion and move the draft into mainspace for you, if that's what you want. (Assuming that Hobit and/or Cunard have looked at the actual current draft--have either of you? No big deal if not, of course, it just changes how much I'd need to look into the draft myself.) Writ Keeper⚇♔20:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
For it to be moved into the mainspace that would be much appreciated as you can see the comments and opinions above on the draft. Thank You Writ Keeper. Please do watch the page too after it has been moved. Oh and with the reviewed section I mentioned before, I did mean DRV but that is just wasting my time once again. I don't want to go down that track again. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Sure, no worries. I'd like to give Cunard and Hobit a chance to weigh in if they'd like, but I don't see any glaring issues with the article, so I'll probably just give them a day or two and then move it regardless. Feel free to ping me again if nothing's happened in a couple days. Writ Keeper⚇♔20:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I just read the current draft. It is clearly above the WP:N bar. The concerns about BLP1E are fair (though I think the sustained coverage overcomes it) and I think the article could probably stand to have a bit more detail (say a sentence or two) on _why_ there is sustained coverage rather than just mentioning that coverage (so what was discussed etc.). Hobit (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank You! I believe this article does pass the WP:N bar too. It is the history that doesn't help. Maybe we can move this to the mainspace now? If anything needs to be added or fixed on the draft then please do! :) --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Guys please also make sure that you watch the Alex Gilbert article too as I believe there are editors on there that disagree. Like I said if it goes to AfD it goes to AfD. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank You! Writ Keeper! I can't say this enough, please watch the article. Last time someone did move it, it was deleted ASAP as it had to go through a DRV. Silly Silly. It needs to go through AfD if someone disagrees with it. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
No problem, happy to help. I have it on my watchlist. Yes, it does need to go through a new AfD if someone were to try to get it deleted. Writ Keeper⚇♔21:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Might be nitpicky, but can you do something about your keep vote formatting? On a quick perusal, it looks like NA1000 voted twice. Can you just separate the actual vote and NA's userlinks so it doesn't look sketchy? MSJapan (talk) 03:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure how to proceed here, this is redirect to the Tulpa concept which from my research is not the most common association. From what I've seen it refers to a combination of presuppositions, imagery, and vocabulary in Christian theology. There also appears to be a magic connotation. How would you proceed, with disamg or article? Valoemtalkcontrib19:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Tulpa#Thoughtform says, "A thoughtform is the equivalent concept to a tulpa but within the Western occult tradition." Since they are equivalent concepts, I recommend keeping Thoughtform as a subsection of Tulpa until there's enough reliably sourced information for a spinout to a separate article. Cunard (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Your "closing" of what? thomas w's quasi rfc on assault rifle page
I'm not quite sure what's going on here or what the rules are. I started a discussion on the assault rifle talk page about the article basically being factually wrong on almost all accounts, being a coat rack article, and simply just being basically a dumping ground for german wunderwaffen dross. The term assault phase rifle was coined in 1916. Developments of higher velocity, lower caliber cartridges had been going on since the turn of the century, the german development of their "machine carbines" was predated by programs from pretty much every other country. And even the STG-44 itself was the development of roughly a decade of refinement in germany. While yes, the sturmgewehr name did stick, that's just the fruit of the nazi propaganda machine. If the article were to choose to focus on simply the term it would be a short article talking about the 1916 coining of the term assault phase rifle, then maybe talk about the german development of sturmtruppen tactics at the end of ww1, which led to the development of the phrase rifle for sturmtruppen, sturmgewehr in ~1944. If the focus of the article was on the german machinekarbine program it would probably focus on the vollmer m35 rifle of the mid '30s followed by the walther development of their prototype machinekarbine going into the start of the formal machinekarbine program to develop the machinekarbine 42, or mkb42. The entrants would include the walther mkb42(w), and the haenel mkb42(h). The mkb42(4) would evolve into the mp44 which would be renamed the stg 44.
So the StG-44 wasn't the first german rifle that had the features required to be classified as an "assault rifle". It wasn't the first rifle with an over the barrel gas system. The 7.92 cartridge it used was not revolutionary in any way, and, in fact, was a refinement of a swiss cartridge. The first assault rifle wasn't german. The assault rifle wasn't first used in world war 2. The first assault rifle wasn't developed by germany. The StG-44 was primarily a semi-automatic rifle, not automatic. Automatic mode was only for emergency use, and to be used in short bursts. Nothing about it was original or groundbreaking. The article also seems to have become the dumping ground for some raw propaganda cum pop-history about the ak-47.
What seems to have happened is that thomas.w hijacked the discussion I started by turning it into an rfc focusing on one particular false point. Only one person commented on that rfc, saying that nobody was providing sources in thomas.w's quasi rfc. I responded that I'd already provided 11 sources including an nra journal, a published book, and popular mechanics. That's it. That was the entirety of the outside input. Now you seem to have come along and "closed" it on the grounds of this false rfc point, claiming that there was somehow a consensus. Now, I have no problem with you closing thomas.w's false quasi rfc, although obviously I don't see how you can claim there was a consensus. But I don't see how you can claim to close the larger discussion, particularly by A: Claiming some sort of consensus, which I don't see, and B: reducing the overall question to one specific deceptive point, deceptive in that it can be said that you could technically say that while nothing about the stg-44 was innovative in any way, shape, or form, and that there had been rifles before the stg-44 that had been called assault phase rifles, that the stg-44 was the first rifle to be called the "sturmgewehr" which, depending on which topic is being covered, is either right, if the topic is, "what rifle was the first rifle to be called the sturmgewehr", or wrong, if the topic is, "what rifle was the first rifle to have the characteristics that we now recognize as being the characteristics of the category of rifle that we call "assault rifle".
I have undone my close and listed it at WP:ANRFC. I was assessing the consensus of the RfC, which was a subsection of the larger discussion, which I did not assess. I think there was a clear consensus among the participants that the response to the RfC question "Was the StG-44 the first assault rifle, designed and employed as such?" is yes. I considered this an uncontroversial, "consensus is clear" close, which has turned out to be an incorrect assumption so I have undone my close to allow another editor to review and close it. Cunard (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
You can close it now...TeeTylerToe has been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for continuous uncooperative and unproductive editing, edit warring, tendentious edits, POV-pushing, talk page filibustering and lack of insight when clearly proven wrong by other reliable sources.--RAF910 (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Cunrad,
I've been following your work lately in order to better learn the ropes of Wikipedia.
I have to say I really like your work and I wanted to ask you if you could review Daniel Zelkind page. I would like to learn how to improve the article. At the moment it is nominated for deletion, but I do believe it meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline
Any input from you would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymd2004 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Cunard,
Sorry for the hassle but I noticed your comment on deleted Daniel Zekind page.
There is an ongoing debate regarding Zeek(company) page. I wanted to ask you for your opinion on the matter. I do have COI with Zeek, but I believe the article can meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP if improvements are made. The company has won many awards over the years and has gotten sufficient coverage in reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddard 'Ned' Stark (talk • contribs) 21:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your tireless word at AFD. Your comments are always well researched and thoughtfully articulated. I appreciate your good work. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Cunrad,
Thank you for your in-depth input regarding Zeek article. Did you see any additional information I could add in order to improve the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymd2004 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the article is well-sourced and at a decent size already. To improve the article, I recommend making sure it complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by using neutral language only and by reflecting all reliably sourced viewpoints of the company—positive or negative. Cunard (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I didn't see your request to draftify it rather than temporary undeleting until after I'd done the latter. If you want to cut-and-paste it to draftspace and work on it there, I'll do the legwork to merge the histories after the drv closes and it's restored, as it looks like it's headed toward; or you can just paste your draft back over it, if you prefer. —Cryptic07:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for putting in the research when you contribute to AfD discussions. This is appreciated, and lends to objective discussions regarding topic notability. North America100023:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree that source searching takes significant time and effort, which is probably why too few editors do so at AfDs. Cunard (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Cunard: I have begun reworking the Kampyle (software) article a bit. Since you have expressed an interest in the article via contributing to the AfD discussion and via some copy editing, an invitation to help out with the process. North America100001:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Information about the company's founders and funders were removed from the Zeek article as "intricate detail". This makes no sense. Who founded a company is important information. Who funded the company (and thus are owners of it) is also important information. It is disappointing that after editors failed to delete the articles, editors are deleting sourced encyclopedic information from the articles. I have reverted the removals. Cunard (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Northamerica1000 (talk·contribs), all the information was removed again here. I don't see what's wrong with restoring the "Further reading" section and removing the maintenance tags since the AfD was closed as "no consensus" and no one has explained how the article is incomplete. Cunard (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. WP:CHURN is a very accurate essay. I agree that "Not all sources that provide information about companies and organizations are automatically churnalism as a default." Too few editors understand that. Cunard (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Northamerica1000 (talk·contribs), the removal of sourced, encyclopedic information at Talk:Appboy#Content restored / removed made me reluctant to join you in working on the articles above. After having my edits reverted for being "promotional" or "intricate detail" at Talk:LearningRx#Changes today, I am certain that this will happen if I contribute to the articles you listed above. I wish you the best of luck in working on those articles and am sorry I cannot help. Cunard (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
All right, thanks for letting me know. Yeah, there's not much point in actually improving articles if the process will just be a vicious circle in which one's edits are all removed. So it goes sometimes. North America100007:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Sourcing issues
I am having issues search for sources regarding Deathmatch Classic. The is a first person shooter mod for Valve's game, Half Life one of the most influential games of all time. The game Deathmatch Classic is included with Half Life which means over 10 million people have purchased the game. Now there is a debate that the mod, a primary release from Valve, is not notable. Some editors are looking for a review of the game which exists but is hard to find due to the fact that the term "deathmatch classic" often refers to a type of combat mode in first person shooters. Because of this the term "deathmatch classic" is generic and becomes difficult to find sources specifically referring to "Deathmatch Classic" the mod. What method would you use here? Valoemtalkcontrib08:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
It's obvious we have different ideas on how to deal with articles on companies with borderline notability . Personally, I could adopt your apparent position that we should cover them, if it were possible to do so in accordance with out principles. The key problem for me is that they greatly encourage paid editing,which is almost never NPOV. As we both know, it's an open question whether articles from paid editors where there is underlying notability should be fixed, in order to add information to the encyclopedia , or removed, in order to discourage paid editing. I take an intermediary position, that it is permissible to rescue them when the importance of the article is very high, and its removal would leave an obvious gap. But I am concerned at your practice of trying to find references to try to keep the extreme borderline ones.
As you know, I consider the GNG worthless for notability in this area. Its use depends upon the interpretation of the key words in the guideline, and it is usually possible to construct a rational argument on either side about whether a reference is substantial./independent/not a press release/etc. The net result of this is a randomness is what we accept or do not accept,depending more on who happens to be active in a particular discussion and the idiosyncrasies of the closing, as upon the article or the subject. Among other things, this makes it difficult to give advice to newcomers about whether they should write a particular article, and it makes it equally difficult to give accurate advice to those asking at OTRS, "Try: you might be lucky" is not what we should be saying.
What I really want is to do two things: one is to eliminate paid editing and advertising from WP to the extent possible, the other is to establish unambiguous guidelines for article retention and content. I consider such standards asWP:PROF or WP:MUSIC to be examples of such guidelines, even if I consider some of these too wide or too narrow. It's better to have e a way of settling the issue. I am not likely to soon accomplish either goal, but I certainly intend to keep trying.
What I'd like to do in practice is to establish some sort of working compromise, whether or not it is explicit. I'm quite willing to try to improve rather than remove the more important third of so of the promotional paid articles (and other articles imitating them), if you will not try to stretch the limits of what might possibly count as a reference for the bottom third. I accept we will never agree about the middle.
I mentioned content: you are just as skilled in writing articles as in defending them, but I for the first time examined in detail one of your articles, the one on Winmark. I agree its notable by any standard. I however noticed a considerable amount of exact duplication between the lede and the article and a considerable use of anecdote and human-interest material. I consider the first to be poor style, the lede should summarize, not repeat selected paragraphs. I consider the second inappropriate for an encyclopedia. "Creation stories" may be popular, but they rest almost always on the unsupported memory of the founder, or whatever he may imaginatively say in an interview. I think similarly for statements of motivation. I therefore made a fairly bold edit of the summary and the first part of the article. I expect you will revert all or part of it, but before you do, consider whether any of my changes have at least partial merit. In any case I am not going to challenge it for now. (I also made some minor changes to GreatAuPair -- they represent what I think essential for tone.)
if you will not try to stretch the limits of what might possibly count as a reference for the bottom third. – I disagree that I "stretch the limits of what might possibly count as a reference for the bottom third". Every AfD in which I invest a significant amount of time searching and listing references is what I consider in the top third. Otherwise, I would not waste my time commenting in the AfD.
As you know, I consider the GNG worthless for notability in this area. – I consider the general notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) to be sufficient for companies. You consider the GNG worthless because you believe even newspapers of record publish promotional articles about businesses:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle (company): In response to an editor listing sources from "Wired, Boston Globe, New York Times and the WSJ", you wrote: "I am not so sure about the value of the references mentioned: More and more I realize that even reputable media will print articles that are no better than press releases. We need to look carefully at what the article says."
What I really want is to do two things: one is to eliminate paid editing and advertising from WP to the extent possible, the other is to establish unambiguous guidelines for article retention and content. – the policy at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure permits paid editing as long as paid editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which they receive, or expect to receive, compensation". If you would like to eliminate paid editing, you must achieve consensus to change the policy. Attempting to piecemeal delete articles you suspect to be created or edited by a paid editor will not achieve your goal. It is impossible to eliminate paid editing while Foundation policy permits it. With regard to "unambiguous guidelines for article retention and content", we have the GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).
I however noticed a considerable amount of exact duplication between the lede and the article and a considerable use of anecdote and human-interest material. – from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." I do not think it is a problem that the lead and the article body contain duplicate material as long as I write article leads to comply with this guideline to concisely summarize the article.
Discussion about the circumstances of a company's founding is standard in company articles like Microsoft#1972–1984: Founding and company beginnings, Amazon.com#History, and Yahoo!#History. I disagree that such information should be excluded from company articles. If a reliable source considers the information about a company's founding provided by the founders to be credible and worthy of discussion, then I believe it should be discussed in the company article. Much of the early life information in the featured articles Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Mitt Romney contain "considerable use of anecdote and human-interest material". Such material can only be verified by primary sources such as the subjects themselves or their family members or friends. The information is included despite that because reliable sources considered the material to be credible and worthy of discussion.
In sum, I base my comments at AfD and article writing on what reliable sources say.
You are making long commentary, Copy-Paste of original article. where Citations or link can be enough. It is making discussions unnecessary lengthy and it can mislead others as unnecessary lengthy read to even participate or vote Keep and cite GNC and move on. Discussions should be short and precise not copy - paste from news articles. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 08:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. AfD is a discussion. It is necessary to list the sources and the quotes I believe establish notability so it is clear to the AfD participants and closing admin why I am supporting retention. Cunard (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
On 28 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Winmark, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a report around 2013 on American used goods outlets put Goodwill first with a 21% market share, Winmark second with nearly 6%, and The Salvation Army third with nearly 4%? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Winmark. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Winmark), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi Cunard, at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jacob_Barnett_(3rd_nomination) you mention material that could be used to expand the article, material that would clearly demonstrate the notability of the subject. The problem is that anyone who adds it will be up against the edit warrior team of SB/DE/Agricola who will be watching and will be there in strength, ensure that such material is quickly removed and that the article continues to read like one about a non-notable person (at least to the casual observer who does not have the time to check out the references). The only longer article that the team has been willing to accept is one which is insulting to the subject's mother. I don't want to add this to the discussion because I am afraid that it will be considered inflammatory and provoke yet another attempt to sanction me. Viewfinder (talk) 08:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Viewfinder. We previously discussed Jacob Barnett at User talk:Cunard/Archive 10#A barnstar for you! 2. I think the new source, a 2016 book, meets WP:SCHOLAR, so I hope any material based on it will be unobjectionable. I recommend opening a talk page discussion to discuss any additions you want to make.
In the talk page discussion, propose what paraphrased sentences or paragraphs you want to add to the article and make sure to support your sentences by listing quotations from the book. If consensus is reached in the talk page discussion about what material to add and how to word the material, then you can add the material to the article. Cunard (talk) 07:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, sure I will obtain a copy of the new book you mention but it will take a few days. Assuming that there is no U-turn and, if the current AfD is concluded by then, it is concluded the same way as AfD2 and the DRV that followed, I will then expand the biography and post a draft to the talk page, where I can by sure that SB, DE and Agricola will come together to shout it down but maybe it will also attract enough positive feedback. But you write I will abstain from editing Jacob Barnett because the article has become a controversial subject. Some editors believe most of the reliable sources about Barnett are unreliable, indicating that anything added to the article probably will be reverted for coming from an unreliable source. That is not the editing environment I like. Neither do I. Beneath User talk:Cunard/Archive 10#A barnstar for you! 2 is a link to the first of three topic ban nominations, by an editor who described proponents of the article as "obsessed fan boys". That was deeply hurtful and offensive. Other editors don't like that environment either, which is why the article remains little more than a stub in which the subject comes across as non-notable to observers who do not have the time to check out the links and references. Viewfinder (talk) 09:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I wish you the best of luck in achieving consensus to expand the biography based on the new book source. So far no one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (3rd nomination) has raised concerns about the book's reliability, so that is a good sign. Maybe you can get a preview of the book like I did through typing "Jacob Barnett" in the "Search inside" section of the Google Books preview. I agree that the topic ban nominations and the "obsessed fan boys" comment was "deeply hurtful and offensive". Based on the past AfD and current AfD, I have the same position at User talk:Cunard/Archive 10#A barnstar for you! 2 in being reluctant to participate in this controversial subject.
I am sorry. I tried to take up your suggestion and was even at one point beginning to think that I was succeeding. What more can I say? Viewfinder (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The article has been stable for two years since the close of the second AfD as "keep". It is disappointing to see half of the well-sourced article deleted after the third AfD was closed as "keep". I have commented in the talk page discussion and pinged the AfD participants. Cunard (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
As you may have noticed, I tried again and even tried boldly adding the material to the article. But for as long as I have been watching it, the article has been owned and slanted by an editor who writes that the neutral point of view is that Barnett was a child whose mother claimed that he was very talented, made numerous false and misleading statements to the media, and took him on talk shows, etc., where these misleading statements were further encouraged. That is certainly not what I am seeing in any sources, but whenever I try to point that out on the talk page, the owner's cohorts close ranks and nobody else appears to be around. What more can I do? Viewfinder (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree that editors of the Jacob Barnett article have a tendency of including very negative information about Barnett and his mother because they personally believe they are right and the reliable sources are largely wrong. Very few reliable sources support their negative narrative. The only reliable source they presented to support their narrative is http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/13-09-25/, which is dubiously reliable. To give that source prominence in the article over the numerous other reliable sources that have a different narrative would be undue weight.
Indeed, I have noticed and welcome SM's recent contributions. I do not usually get involved in biographies, but somehow I became involved in this one because I identify with its subject (which I have declared) and felt very strongly about some of the offensive language, particularly what was being directed against his mother. But whether or not it is an appropriate source, I have to say that I agree with the skeptic's analysis of some of the media coverage. Viewfinder (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I also agree with the Skeptic's analysis of some of the media coverage. That source's view should be accorded only its due weight in the article and no more since the other sources largely take a different view. Cunard (talk) 08:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
These guys have adopted a new tactic. Every time I write anything on the talk page that they do not like, they vandalise article material by replacing it with their own POV take on the subject presented as hard fact. Viewfinder (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing neutral about the article as it currently stands. It has been stuffed, stuffed and stuffed again with the personal take of its owner. Viewfinder (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Improve the article's wording? Nobody has a cat in hell's chance. Its owner and his three cohorts have deleted everything I have ever tried to contribute. It has now reached the point where I can't even contribute to the talk page without being responded to with threats. Is this the future of Wikipedia? Viewfinder (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
In a 2011 Glenn Beck Program segment, Beck asked Barnett to solve a calculus problem, but did not check the results. Barnett was asked to establish convergence of the divergent series to which he incorrectly applied the integral test, and the error went unrecognized in the program.
The only citation is to the Glenn Beck Program. It is undue weight and original research to mention this error when no reliable sources discuss it. The inclusion is only to push the view that Barnett's abilities are greatly exaggerated. That his abilities have been exaggerated as explained by Phil Plait does not justify the addition of original research to support that position. Only if the Glenn Beck Program errors were discussed by reliable sources can this be mentioned in the article.
S Marshall is working on establishing the reliability of the book source before proposing specific edits to the article, so I recommend working with him on that.
The current article is ridiculous. It is heavily slanted and effectively accuses Barnett, his mother and vast sections of the media of lying. There is nothing like that in any appropriate source. Whether or not its accusations are justified is not for us to judge, and Wikipedia should not be being used to push the take of outraged physicists in this way. They should publish their take on their own websites for us to link. I have made that point on the talk page, but apart from a few minor changes, nobody has come out in support of my position, and if continue to pursue it alone I will likely get into trouble. I can only conclude that for some reason, Wikipedia is allowing it to stand despite its OR, NPOV and BLP policies. Viewfinder (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
No. The policy begins "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check" the information according to sources. That's "can, as in, is able to do so during the present time", not "could have, at some point in the past, but now we just expect you to trust the person who added this".
I'm not sure that discussing the instant case is useful. Either you can cite that claim to an independent source (ideally an independent secondary source that discusses why anyone cares what some kid posted on the internet), or the material simply isn't important enough to write about at all. "Child posted something on the internet! The URL doesn't work now, but trust us: we're sure that it was this BLP and the link used to work!" is not exactly the kind of encyclopedic material that Wikipedia strives for.
It is notable that uninvolved editors at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability overwhelmingly agreed that mentioning the YouTube video's being unavailable is original research since no sources explicitly say this. It is very likely that uninvolved editors also will find much of the current Jacob Barnett article to be filled with original research and personal opinions designed to cast Barnett as a charlatan.
Furthermore, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Discretionary sanctions says that per the arbitration remedy WP:NEWBLPBAN, "The discretionary sanctions allow administrators to apply topic bans and other measures that may not be reverted without community consensus or the agreement of the enforcing administrator." This remedy may be useful if any editors repeatedly violate WP:BLP on the Jacob Barnett article.
I see someone has done this. Predictably when I joined the discussion I was subjected to a nasty personal attack from an editor who generates so much heat that not many people are able to stay in the kitchen for long. Personal attacks seem to be a necessary part of that editor's strategy. Viewfinder (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, WhatamIdoing (talk·contribs) has made very helpful changes to improve the tone of the article article and insightful comments on the talk page. I agree that that comment is uncalled for and a good example of why I am not participating in editing the article or discussing the article on the talk page. Cunard (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it's time for me to join you on the sidelines. Several noticeboard discussions have achieved very little, although I commend editors who are doing their best. As someone who, like the subject of the article, is affected by Asperger's syndrome, it is really troubling me. The problem is that a tightly knit group of three editors remain in full control of what has become possibly the worst article on Wikipedia ever. They appear to want to keep it that way with intent to renominate it at AfD. If it had not been for exaggerations by some of the media, the subject would have likely become notable on the back of good coverage like this and there would have been no controversy. But Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum to use to discredit the media. If we can't expand the article with biographical material, why can't we as least delete the exaggerations - which come from unreliable sources - and revert to the short article that was stable for two years until it was renominated and subsequnly butchered? Viewfinder (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree the short article that was stable for two years is far superior to the current article filled with original research and editor's personal opinions about the sources and the subject. Cunard (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The Challenge Series
The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.
Hello, Cunard. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi again. I have added recent closure reviews in the list on your behalf. I might or might not have time to update the list. If you don't have free time to update the list, where else can I recruit other volunteers to make updates? --George Ho (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Winmark you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sagecandor -- Sagecandor (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Cunard, Sorry for changing the comment on the above. It look like a comment for delete, but didn't want to bias it, so put comment for delete. I like the way you come in adding the source to help. It seems to be a unique way of reinforcing the Afd argument for keep. Happy New Year!. scope_creep (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Cunard, I've regularly noticed your contributions at Afd. You are one of the few users who have a very high rate of Keep !votes at Afds. And your Keep assertions are almost always supported with exquisite commentary and narrative grounded most often in factual and reliable sources. I know that there would be many editors who might not appreciate such long discussion orientation; however, in my opinion, it displays your commitment to searching for the sources rather than dismissively !vote delete (which is so much easier and practised by many editors at Afd). In my opinion, your contributions at Afd are exemplary.
As the legend on this award goes:
With intelligent and most helpful inputs, you truly are an outstanding contributor.
Thank you for your very kind words, Lourdes (talk·contribs)! I have a high rate of "keep" votes because I spent most of my time finding sources for articles I believe have a good chance of being notable. For such articles, I usually am able to find significant coverage in reliable sources about the subjects. I write detailed "keep" rationales so that AfD participants and the closing admin understand why I am supporting retention instead of guessing at my rationale. Thank you again for the "Outstanding contributions recognition" award! Cunard (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I have noticed you do an excellent job of curating WP:ANRFC. I have seen Talk:United_States_Senate_election_in_South_Dakota,_2016#Request_for_Comment:_Should_Kurt_Evans_be_listed_as_.22Failed_to_Qualify.22.3F listed for long time and was working on a close. After investigating, I see that it will have to be a difficult one, especially since the candidate is involved directly in the debate. This is probably why it has lingered. I think it needs an endorsed or multi-editor close, so the editor in question does not perceive it as one opinion, and I would like you to assist me. If I write up a proposed close and email it to you, would you then endorse it once posted? If this works for you, let me know and we can work out some process. I will probably also contact one or two other experienced closers with the same request. Thanks. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)15:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Eggishorn. Thank you for your kind words and your hard work closing RfCs at WP:ANRFC. I've reviewed the RfC and reached the same conclusion that the "Failed to qualify" wording did not gain consensus as described in your proposed close at User:Eggishorn/sandbox/kurt evans:
Extended content
In considering the status of a Request for Comments on a contentious issue, the closer needs to take into account not only the views expressed by the participants but also whether those views comport with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The exercise is not merely one of counting heads; for this reason we refer to views expressed in such discussions as “!votes” or “not votes.”
This RfC attracted a lot of text but relatively few distinct editors and very few concrete wordings. No alternative wording attracted serious support.
Although wikipedia tries to consider the preference of BLP subjects when possible, that is secondary to providing a comprehensive, neutral encyclopedia with proper weight given to each topic addressed in an article. In the case of this RfC, the obvious most important policy is Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of Living People. That policy states any information in such articles: must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (NOR).
Unfortunately, much of the views expressed by participants in this discussion and in the related Administrator's Noticeboard Incident discussion violates one or multiple core content policies. Therefore, such opinions are not included in this evaluation.
The verifiable facts as presented in reliable sources are these: The State of South Dakota sets ballot access requirements that favor the two established major parties (the Democratic Party and the Republican Party). Two third parties (the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party chose to challenge those laws in federal court. While this legal challenge was underway, the Constitution Party chose to nominate Kurt Evans as its candidate for United States Senator from South Dakota. Neither the party nor the candidate ever attempted to comply with the terms of the ballot access laws they challenged. The litigation closed with a decision in favor of the defendants and
Kurt Evans was not on the ballot.
The only way to close this RfC in line with both sources and policy, therefore, is not to use either “not qualified” or “denied.”
As an editorial matter, the simplest and most neutral way to describe this situation is to list the Constitution Party and Mr. Evans as "Failed to gain ballot access", “Nominated but not listed on ballot”, or an equivalent formulation. Because of the low participation in the debate, the exact wording to be included should be considered editorial, not administrative. The normal cycle of editing can and should attempt to refine it.
The only way to close this RfC in line with both sources and policy, therefore, is not to use either “not qualified” or “denied.”
to:
The only way to close this RfC in line with both sources and policy, therefore, is not to use either "not qualified” or "denied." There is no consensus for a particular wording. Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus says:
In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it.
No consensus was reached for how to discuss Kurt Evans. Because there is no consensus and this is a "contentious matte[r] related to living people", the "not qualified" or "denied" wording should not be restored.
This makes it clear that because there is no consensus on an exact wording for this contentious BLP matter, the disputed wording should not be retained even if it was "the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit".
Change:
As an editorial matter, the simplest and most neutral way to describe this situation is to list the Constitution Party and Mr. Evans as "Failed to gain ballot access", "Nominated but not listed on ballot”, or an equivalent formulation. Because of the low participation in the debate, the exact wording to be included should be considered editorial, not administrative. The normal cycle of editing can and should attempt to refine it.
to:
No consensus was reached on an exact wording because of low participation in the debate. Speaking as editors instead of closers, we believe that a simple and neutral way to describe this situation is to list the Constitution Party and Evans as "Did not gain ballot access", "Nominated but not listed on ballot", or an equivalent formulation. We recommend that editors consider our suggestions as a possible basis for further discussion and that editors follow the normal cycle of editing to reach consensus on an exact wording.
This changes "Failed to gain ballot access" to "Did not gain ballot access" to avoid using the word "failed", which has negative connotations. This also makes it more clear that "Did not gain ballot access" and "Nominated but not listed on ballot" are merely our suggestions and not the consensus.
Cunard, thank you for the suggestions and the kind words. I have incorporated your suggestions as well as some from Tazerdadog and made one or two of my own. Most notably, I changed: "The litigation closed with a decision in favor of the defendants..." to "... without a decision in favor of the plaintiffs...". Functionally, they mean the same thing but it again removes some connotations. Thanks again. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)17:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
From the "No good deed goes unpunished" file, you probably want to be aware of this: I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's "NLT" policies, but it's true that after months and months of dealing with this garbage, I'm now planning to pursue defamation lawsuits against Wikimedia and several regular Wikipedia editors.. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)04:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Speaking as editors instead of closers, we believe that a simple and neutral way to describe this situation is to list the Constitution Party and Evans as "Did not gain ballot access", "Nominated but not listed on ballot", or an equivalent formulation. We recommend that editors consider our suggestions as a possible basis for further discussion and that editors follow the normal cycle of editing to reach consensus on an exact wording. To make it perfectly clear: this suggestion is editorial, not administrative. The normal cycle of editing can and should attempt to refine it.
Since our suggested wording was contested, should we open a new discussion and in the mean time remove mention of Kurt Evans out of an abundance of caution per WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE?
After reviewing Kurt Evans' concerns, maybe we could propose a wording like:
==Constitution Party== The Constitution Party designated Kurt Evans to be its Senate candidate if the party gained access to the ballot. Federal district judge Karen Schreier rejected the party's request to place a candidate on the ballot.
This puts the focus on the party's failure to get him on the ballot (instead of on Evans' not gaining access to the ballot), which matches the focus of the Dakota Free Press article here (my emphasis):
In an August 31 ruling, Judge Schreier reiterates the logic of her August 15 ruling, in which she said she cannot let the Constitution Party run Evans for U.S. Senate and Schmidt for District 23 House because the litigants are not challenging the specific statutes keeping Evans and Schmidt off the ballot.
I believe that @Dane: already met WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE with the addition of WP:RS. At this point, the article has been protected and a range block issued. That takes care of the disruption, but in regards to WP:BLP, I wonder if any expansion beyond the most basic statement starts running into WP:WEIGHT difficulties. Thanks again for all your input. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)04:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I think the most accurate wording would place the emphasis on the party's failing to get a candidate on the ballot and would address Kurt Evans' concerns.
I do not see how two sentences about the Constitution Party situation can be considered undue weight. The section still would be given far less weight than the two major parties' sections. Even assuming it was undue weight, the article originally had the tighter wording, "Kurt Evans, state party's motions to allow a U.S. Senate candidacy rejected by federal district judge Karen Schreier". This is one sentence. It was not discussed in the RfC. Only the subsection heading was discussed in the RfC. This sentence cannot be dismissed with the argument that it is undue weight, and it puts the focus on the state party instead of the candidate, which matches what the source says. Cunard (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Having thought about it, I think somewhere in-between might be clearest and simplest. What do you think of:
==Constitution Party==The Constitution Party nominated Kurt Evans for Senate depending on the resolution of a ballot-access legal action, however, the party's request to place a candidate on the ballot was not granted.
Yes, I think that is a significant improvement over the article's current wording in putting the emphasis on the state party instead of Kurt Evans. Thank you for proposing it.
Kurt Evans also took issue with the "Candidates" subheader. He said he never was a candidate because the judge rejected the Constitution Party's request to place a candidate on the ballot. Because the "Candidates" subheader does not precisely capture the Constitution Party situation, I think it is better to just remove it, which you did in your proposed wording above. Cunard (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Implemented this wording in the article. I think this is the best we can do while maintaining equal weight and fairness to the situation. -- Danetalk23:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you DarjeelingTea, and thank you for your hard work at WP:ANRFC writing detailed, thoughtful rationales for your decisions. The care you put into every one of your closes is very appreciated. Cunard (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
How do I provide an "appropriate and verifiable license?" I work for the organization and have approval to update their wiki, so the material I posted is approved by Purple Songs leadership.
Cedolan99 (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
These children are given a highly creative, much needed musical environment to express their many and varied thoughts and feelings.
violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Even if the material was released under a proper license, it still would be inappropriate for the article because it is promotional and unsourced.
I thought you were kidding. But I answered like you were not since you could have been asking me in earnest. Thank you for clarifying. Cunard (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey Cunard, I'm the editor in question. To be clear, only a portion of that edit is plagiarized.
The paragraph beginning: "Specified grievances include..."
And paragraph beginning "He stated, "Day-to-day life is unbearably stressful, as Emma and her mattress parade around campus each and every day..."
These are both pulled with minimal changes from the au news (about halfway down the article, after the second picture). Here are the sources side-by-side. I don't think a scanning tool is necessary here, but then again, I didn't really think a 3rd opinion would be needed either. Nblundtalk02:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
It's very good! There is a an undeletion page where I will propose to have the article restores in about a week's time. You're welcome of course to request restoration.--Jondel (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Many recommend moving to the mainspace at the deletion review. Hmm. The article is substantially different.--Jondel (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Authorship: Hi Cunard, I would like to restore the article, as there seems to be an agreement. However, it will look like I authored it. Why don't you restore or more appropriately, 'create' the article, since yours is a new version anyway?--Jondel (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the rules are about this, but would you be willing to reopen Template talk:Link language#Request for comment on formatting? It doesn't seem as though the page is much frequented and I think given all the related past comments this discussion needs to keep happening until some consensus is reached. I know I'd like to make a comment.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Got your ping regarding the AfD. Looks like 23 for delete and 9 for keep. I commented on the 2014 AfD closure by Sandstein that someone wanted overturned. I'll Google Jacob and put my comment there probably by tomorrow. Thanks for letting me know this has come again for AfD. I'm wondering if this isn't really an ArbCom issue at this point. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your merge close at Talk:And you are lynching Negroes. I added more to the AFD history at the top of the article talk page. It is simply amazing how many times certain individuals have tried in vain, over and over again, to either get the page to disappear — either by deletion discussion or merge discussion. Hopefully this AFD history template shows those disappear attempts more clearly for future editors. Sagecandor (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
On a related note, you may also be interested in my research on Whataboutism.
I've greatly expanded the page. Before [8]. After [9].
I've also added to the top of the article talk page, the number of attempts made by certain individuals to have the information disappeared, either through deletion attempts or merge attempts.
Hopefully, now that the page represents a greater corpus of research, such attempts will decrease and or fail in the future.
Thanks for taking the time to evaluate coverage in your AfD !votes. Makes it easier to determine what is in such sources prior to making my own !votes. I may not always agree with your analysis, but I am glad you take the time to go through everything so I can evaluate more easily. CNMall41 (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words! I'm glad my comments at AfD have helped you determine whether to support retention or deletion of an article. Cunard (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
And I find them helpful too. I always appreciate your work, though I usually disagree with the conclusions you draw. I think I'm good at finding sources, but you seem to be better. And having them out there makes for a better argument. But speaking as the inclusionist I have always been at heart--it might be a better idea to use the to write a proper article> Or even as a second best, replace the existing text with what you find . Remember WP:HEYMAN. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words, DGG. I wish I had the time to both find sources and rewrite every article at every AfD I participate in. But I do not. Cunard (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Some articles that have been deleted could be very easily rewritten to conform to the relevant guidelines. It is less easy to find the time to defend these articles from those who come together in strength to get articles removed that they do not happen to like. Viewfinder (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
"I wish I had the time to both find sources and rewrite every article at every AfD I participate in. But I do not." Couldn't have put it better myself. Often these days, when what time I have on here tends to be improving more established articles, I sometimes just drop a note in saying there are sources and if anyone's got a mo, could they use them to improve the article. But often it sits there, unfurnished. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I have found sources such as this, this person has been repeatedly covered in third party RS, in fact there are over 200 sources on him this year alone, I was wondering what your opinions are here, does recent negative coverage nullify someone from GNG? Valoemtalkcontrib02:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your objective and fact-based assessments in various areas of Wikipedia. It takes more time to perform research, but doing so helps to ensure neutrality and accuracy in the encyclopedia. Cheers! North America100007:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it takes a lot of time and effort to perform research for sources. Thank you for recognizing my efforts, Northamerica1000 (talk·contribs)! I have also admired your hard work on performing comprehensive searches for sources on numerous topics. Cunard (talk) 06:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
New Media Holdings
Hi. I'm afraid I didn't see that there was a discussion going on as there was a speedy deletion tag which I agreed with. However, I'll restore the article and we can continue the discussion on the appropriate page. Deb (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the merits of your argument et al. My main concern was the formatting (using the font-size tag) was pathetic to say the least and disrupted the entire flow.(Heh!, you can reasonably expect that AFD participants are not visually disabled).On a side-note, though you seem to be extremely proficient in retrieving-sources about a subject, 50 sources(with blockquotes) are way too-too-too much.Cheers:)Winged Blades Godric06:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I disagree that using the font-size tag is "pathetic to say the least". It was used to clearly separate each of the six topics' sources from each other.
50 sources would be too much if only one article had been nominated. But it is not too much for six articles nominated for deletion. It is not possible to prove that a topic is notable without presenting the evidence as I have done here.
Perhaps you'd be interested in undertaking a difficult task
The concept Heterophobia is clearly notable enough for a stand alone article, however due to its conflicts with certain interest groups, information on these subjects have been removed in what I believe is a violation of NPOV. Would you be interested in helping write a comprehensive article on what this subject, I fear that at DRV this will be a long and unpleasant process. Valoemtalkcontrib15:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the note. I made a typo when I wrote "The consensus is allowing two nationalities in the lead." I meant to say "The consensus is against allowing two nationalities in the lead." I have fixed the close. My apologies for the error. Cunard (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
The second discussion found that the Israeli flag should not be added to the "Main belligerent" section. One editor noted in the discussion, "Providing support does not a combatant make." I see no conflict because that Israel was not a main belligerent does not mean that it was not involved in the Syrian Civil War.
Regarding the first RfC, I don't see consensus that "it was decided to move that RfC (procedurally closing the older one with less participants)". Huldra (talk·contribs) wrote, "If you think that this RfC is wrongly worded, the please suggest any other wording" and "That it is not mentioned in the Syrian Civil War article is indeed an oversight, I haven’t been involved there. I will start an RfC there immediately." Two other editors supported including a separate Israel section in the article after you suggested a procedural close.
What is your opinion on WP:NOTDICTIONARY, it appears that terms such as Cuckservative pass GNG due to sources. The term Neckbeard appears to have just as many sources. User NorthAmerica1000 provided some additional detailed sources, does NOTDICTIONARY override GNG? What would be a recommended approach I should take to this? Valoemtalkcontrib21:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Please come to bosaso talk page [[10]] and see the new up to date of 2011 bosaso population estimate. I found I reliable book that was published in 2011 that says the city of bosaso has a population of 500,000 [1]
The fans wanted Harry Bramer, of Denver, to fight [Eddie] Mack, but the strongest candidate Ortiz would, or could, secure was Wildcat Monte. The Amarillo fighter would go on to become one of the busiest fighters of all time, entering the ring over 300 times between 1923 and 1937. In 1924 alone, he would tally up 38 fights, and, in subsequent years, come close to that. When he fought Mack, "The Golden Sandstorm" was young, reportedly undefeated (he had a few losses no one in the press knew about) and was equal to Mack in height, reach and, almost, age, being one year older.
The two were booked for the Rialto Theater in Santa Fe for Feb. 12, 1924. Monte arrived four days early to spar with locals Demon Rivera, Kid Pacheco and Freddie Martinez, convincing crowds of 200 that his style would give Mack fits. The demand for Mack had grown so much that tickets were double the usual: $2 for the floor, $2.50 ringside. Seven hundred filled the seats and aisles beyond capacity, until they "could not have squeezed in another with a shoe horn."
It wasn't even close. Monte "proved a flash in the pan and just for a few seconds in the opening frame" did he give "Eddie a run for the mazuma." Then Mack went to work, dropping the Wildcat once in the first, twice in the second and five times in the third before the sponge went tumbling into the ring.
Wildcat Monte is an Amarillo product entirely. His real name is Monte Deadwiley. Put it all together and he has a name for the books. Wildcat is one of the local …
Dallas, Tex., Feb. 20 (AP)—Wildcat Monte, Wichita, Kans., welter weight, defeated Sabina Apara, claimant of the Philippine welter weight title, in a ten-round bout here tonight. Monte won every round.
Jacksonville, Fla., Nov. 26 (AP)—After clowning through the greater portion of the bout, Wildcat Monte, Fort Worth, Texas, fighter, suddenly cried: "I've had enough of this," lifted aloft the right hand of Joey Spiegel, Pittsburg, Pa., welter weight, and jumped from the ring early in the ninth round of a scheduled 10-round bout tonight.
Wichita, Kas., May 5 (AP)—"Wildcat" Monte of Drumright, Okla., and Mickey Cohen of Denver, lightweights, boxed ten rounds here tonight, with Monte winning on points, in the opinion of newspaper men.
Tulsa, Okla., March 10 (AP)—King Tut of Minneapolis won on a technical knockout in the third round over Wildcat Monte of Drumright, Okla., here tonight.
Topeka, Nov. 6 (AP)—Wildcat Monte of Drumright, Okla., knocked out Duff Stanley of Pampa, Texas, in the ninth round of a scheduled ten-round bout here tonight. Jack Dempsey refereed the bout.
San Antonio, Tex., Aug. 23 (AP)—David Velasco of the City of Mexico, outpointed Wildcat Monte of Wichita Falls in a ten-round bout here at 135 pounds tonight.
Herbert Stribling was reexamining his path in life. Three months after his brother's death, he fought his last professional match, defeating Wildcat Monte in Miami. The fight had been scheduled for months and Herbert kept his commitment. But after that he was through.
I MENTIONED recently the driver of a London taxi who is also a well-known and popular broad caster. Another taximan, whose rank is opposite the Turf Club in the West End, is the hero of innumerable ring fights. He is Billy Bird, a welterweight, who has fought over 400 contents in the last 17 years, including many in the Albert Hall and the National Sporting Club. Many times Bird has scrambled into his clothes after a fight, to take his seat in his taxi and pick up a fare from the spectators as they left the hall. Very rarely has he been recognised. He engages in a bout every two or three weeks, and so is always in training; that is when he is not driving his taxi about the streets of London. Of his last 21 fights he has lost only one.
Billy Bird of London, England compiled the most career knockouts with 138 of them. He fought as a welterweight between 1920 and 1948 and retired with a record of 263-73-20. He was also knocked out himself 22 times. But even though he knocked out 138 opponents, his Ko percentage was below average at just 39 per cent. In addition, Bird fought mostly against Grade B and C opponents during his career. Former Light Heavyweight Champ Archie ‘The Old Mongoose’ Moore went 186-23-10 in his illustrious career and according to BoxRec scored 132 Kos for a 60 per cent knockout ratio. Moore was stopped just seven times himself and fought numerous world champions such as Willie Pastrano, Rocky Marciano, Floyd Patterson, and Muhammad Ali. Bird may hold the official record, but Moore’s achievement was definitely better considering he faced tougher opposition.
Over the course of his career, Klitschko has earned an imposing 51 knockouts to his name.
But never in his, or anyone else today, for that matter’s, wildest dreams could ever hope to collect over 100 knockouts in their career.
Throughout history, a select group of fighters, with a perfect blend of busy fight schedules and powerful fists, have laid claim to such a feat.
Amongst them are Henry Armstrong, Sandy Saddler, Sugar Ray Robinson, Tiger Jack Fox, Archie Moore, Billy Bird, Sam Langford, Alabama Kid and Young Stribling.
London, Sept. 30. At the Blackfriars ring Billy Bird (Chelsea), out-pointed Leo Wax In 15 rounds. Wax was more aggressive, but Bird proved the cleverer. The Australian forced the pace In the first round, and was cautioned for low deliveries. Bird had the better of the exchanges until the seventh, when Wax scored freely, shaking his opponent with several blows. Thereafter, he sought to fight at close quarters, but Bird maintained the lead.
"The crowds? You don't take any notice of them. The quiet people you take notice of, but you don't take notice of those who shout out: "a good punch in the stomach would knock him out." I used to notice them, but it got so bad at the finish, I used to … not exactly blaspheme, but tell them where to go sometimes. They shout out to you: "Fine, fine, hit him again," and perhaps you do it automatically and it misses. They don't know anything." –Billy Bird, a London boxer and taxi-driver, interviewed by Jack Peach in the B.B.C series "Meet the People."
The brothers Jack and Joe Bloomfield were at one time boxing in the same division, and another pair of brothers who are fighting at the same weight are Sonny and Billy Bird of Chelsea, but none of these brothers have met in championship contests.
Alf. Mancini of London, is one of the aggressive type of boxers, and it would be all the better for Britain's prestige if there were more of his kind about. He made short work of his contest with Billy Bird, of Chelsea, which was decided at The Ring, on Monday, the contest being at 10 stone 6 lbs. Mancini dropped his rival with a clip to the jaw in the flrst few moments and had him down again soon after. Seeing that Bird was groggy, Mancini forced matters and getting in close, he banged his right into his rival's ribs and followed up with a left hook to the jaw, which ended matters. The contest did not last half a round, so that it was well the spectators saw some brisk work whilst it lasted.
Billy Bird, a Southend (Eng.) boxer, knocked out Sid McMillan, of London, in the fifth round of a fight at South-End, Essex. McMillan went down three times in tho fourth round and Bird once, and in the fifth round .Bird was staggering on his feet when he landed the decisive blow. No sooner had the timekeeper shouted out than Bird reeled to his corner and collapsed, remaining unconscious long after McMillan had recovered. Thus only McMilIan, the loser, knew who had won.
Even if he keeps fighting regularly, Laight is unlikely to have more fights than Leicester’s Len Wickwar, who had 468 recorded fights between 1928 and 1947, or Chelsea bus conductor Billy Bird, who fought for money 356 times in a 30-year ring career.
Thanks! I went ahead and started those articles, would you be interested in creating a few on historic boxers. I found another very notable boxer George Odwell who is currently seventh of the top ten knockout holders with 111 KOs. Edit I went ahead and started the article, I was looking for sources regarding KO MorganBoxRecValoemtalkcontrib11:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Cunard. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I am grateful for your kind words, Snuge purveyor (talk·contribs). I appreciate your hard work at WP:ANRFC in closing contentious discussions like this and this. Thank you for the diligence and care you take in reviewing these difficult discussions and writing detailed closing statements. Cunard (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Invitation
Thank you for your contributions to articles related to women in sports!
Hi Cunard, so I came to this article through a request on IRC and I was wondering if you could help me out with it. I want to at least improve some of the referencing and I notice that on the previous AfD you noted four references. Three of them are now dead. Both the original and the archive links do not work anymore and I can't find any other archive of them. The only one that still works is this small one from The New York Times. Do you remember what you did to find those archives? Would you be able to find them again so I know what I have to work with? I can't find anything else on Google and I really want to at least provide some independent sourcing. The New York Times article is a start but without more I don't know what to do. Thanks in advanced for any help with this. --Majora (talk) 05:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm new to this. Thanks for your feedback on disclosing my status as a paid employee of the company. Now it's been disclosed, can I edit the page bearing in mind that the changes I previously made were all referenced from news articles?Alexandra Hui (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Cunard, I wonder if I can get your opinion on the question I have posed on the above draft talk page? In my experience you're the best at finding sources if they exist in cases like this, and if you can spare the time I would very much appreciate your input there. Lankiveil(speak to me)10:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC).
Hi Lankiveil. Thank you for your kind words. Please feel free to reach out to me in the future if you want me to search for sources for a topic.
I searched for sources about "Brian Clifton" and his other names "Dirk Pilaet" and "Dirk Thyssens". But I could not find significant coverage about him in any of my searches. The only source reliable source I found was this passing mention in a book. He is Belgian so it is possible that there are offline Dutch, German, or French sources about him. You mentioned on the talk page that the subject reached out to OTRS asking for restoration of his biography. Can he provide any sources like newspaper or magazine articles that have significant coverage of him? Cunard (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
If you write something about yourself on your user page, it won't light up red (signifying a newbie) in your AfD discussions. Thanks for your support of Reedsy btw.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. I prefer a red-linked user page because I am able to more easily find my edits in page histories. I don't think a red-linked user page signifies a newbie. Any editors who think I am a newbie should be able to tell based on my comments that I am established editor. Cunard (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't see your response in time for the DRV close. I did see the parts you are quoting, and I thought of them as "IPO stuff" rather than "company stuff", but that was probably not the greatest (or most relevant) distinction. But IMO it feels like a level removed from the company in some sense. As to the other, I pretty much never have a problem with userfication, so sure, I'd support that. Hobit (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with that conclusion but thank you for giving me the courtesy of a reply to my question. Pinging Dhiraj1984 (talk·contribs). There is one other participant in the DRV besides myself who would support userfication if you would like to find more sources and rewrite the article. Cunard (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
And thank you for all the effort you put into things like this. In this case I disagreed with you, but in general I find the work you put into those things to be hugely useful. Thank you again for all your work. Hobit (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Cunard. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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.
Meade Esposito appears to be extremely notable, but I am unable to access many book sources on his poticial life before his 1988 scandal. He was recently mentioned in this NYT article about Donald Trump. Did you possibly want to write an article on this man? Valoemtalkcontrib20:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree Meade Esposito is very notable. I will be short on time in the near term but can write an article about him in a few months if no one else has gotten to it first. Cunard (talk) 07:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll be writing a wiki on Meade Esposito next week. I know you are an expert when it comes to companies and products. Can you start a stub on "Aroma housewares" company not sure what the primary name should be the company builds Aroma small kitchen appliances, I believe they were founded in 1977 and is the United States leading rice cooker producer. Another product is EZ-Wider the rolling papers. Can you start a stub on these? Valoemtalkcontrib19:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I can take a look at Aroma Housewares and EZ-Wider but no promises as to when I'll get to them. Best of luck with Meade Esposito. I look forward to reading the article about him. Cunard (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Your postings in AfD
Can you please stop posting the lists of so-called references in your lengthy formatting style like this, especially in AfD discussions involving corporations. First, it is highly disruptive. Most of the references you list fail the criteria for establishing notability and this has been pointed out to you in the past. Also, since your postings regularly involve scrolling several screens of references it causes disjointed discussions. Finally, the sheer volume of references and the lengthy format involving selected quotations fool other editors into thinking that extensive research has been done and that the research is good. It isn't. Your selection of quotations is deliberately misleading and I notice you often provide partial quotations and remove that part that shows the reference fails the criteria for establishing notability. Perhaps if you used a different format that is shorter and more concise and stop using selective quotations, it would benefit all AfD discussions. HighKing++ 15:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
TeamHealth (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TeamHealth) was a Fortune 1000 company in 2012. It is clearly notable. Each source I posted there helps establish notability. My references and quotes demonstrate why I believe the company is notable. I disagree my work is "highly disruptive" or "deliberately misleading" or that I have not conducted "extensive research" or that my research is not good.
In fairness, you sometimes find references that meet the criteria for establishing notability - I've changed my !vote on TeamHealth because of the references you found in the second loooonggg list. But - why do you need to post references that fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH (e.g. this fortune.com reference or this knoxnews.com reference)? Often times you selectively quote from the references but leave out the parts that would assist other editors in determining that the references might fail WP:ORGIND? The style you use for references and their quotations often means scrolling pages of text and this results in disjointed discussions. Please stop quoting references that obviously fail ORGIND and/or CORPDEPTH - the quality of your posts at AfD would be raised considerably. HighKing++ 18:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for reconsidering your position at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TeamHealth. The Fortune references verifies that TeamHealth was a Fortune 1000 company in 2012. The knoxnews.com article does in my view meet WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The article contains quotations from the company's founder. But it also has substantial independent material the journalist researched about the company.
I leave out quotations from company personnel because that material does not establish notability. I quote only independent material written by the journalist himself or herself to show that the article contains sufficient independent content to pass WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH.
This is where I believe there is a problem. No offence, but I don't believe either of those references meets the criteria for establishing notability. Both contain company-produced data (financial, market breakdown, etc). There is no analysis or opinion whatsoever in either. Exactly what independent material written by the journalist is contained in the knownews reference??? The parts you selectively quoted are not the independent analysis or opinion of the journalist. What about asking at the Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies) page, taking both those references as examples, and getting the opinions of others? If they say that they don't meet the criteria for establishing notabilty, will you then have a rethink about they way you're posting at AfD? HighKing++ 01:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Cunard. I was impressed by your action at RfD of List of federal political scandals in the United States which involved your 'Pinging' other editors for comment. I tried to follow procedures by going to Help:Talk pages and Wikipedia:Notifications but I quickly got lost, other than to learn that Pinging is now refered to as 'Echos' for some reason and are now listed under Notifications. Neither could I follow how or where to use the templates or which template to use. I know, I'm an idiot.
Hi Johnsagent. Some of the technical pages here can be difficult to understand, so don't worry about not understanding these ones. From Wikipedia:Notifications:
A number of templates are used for this – {{User}}, {{User link}}, and {{Reply to}} are common examples – which will all trigger notifications. Plain links to user pages will also work to notify the mentioned user. An example of a "plain link": [[User:Example]].
I'm having trouble finding information regarding this former company which merged with Exelon in 1999. This NYTimes article called the company Unicom Corporation, but there are so many company called Unicom, the two companies merging to form the largest energy company should each be independently notable, can you find some sources regarding that company? I've started E-Z Wider. Valoemtalkcontrib02:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Valoem. Nice work on E-Z Wider! Here are sources about Unicom:
The name Commonwealth Edison Co. was almost consigned to the history books while officials were considering a name for its new holding company and a makeover of its corporate image.
...
Three weeks ago, executives selected Unicom Corp. as the name of its new holding company, which was created to enter other endeavors in the energy field. The next round of changes will involve the electric company.
...
The Commonwealth Edison name has existed since Samuel Insull merged Chicago Edison Co. and Commonwealth Electric Co. in 1907.
...
A footnote: The name of Edison's new holding company isn't unique. A St. Louis public relations firm is called UNICOM Group. It has many labor unions as clients. Petkus says Edison found several other companies with the Unicom name, but its lawyers don't foresee any legal problems. Judy Anderson, vice president of UNICOM, says her firm doesn't plan to register a complaint.
Unicom Corp., apparently satisfied with the pending compromise to deregulate the electric utility industry, is planning to re-enter the natural gas business, company officials said Thursday.
James J. O'Connor, Unicom chairman, told shareholders at the Chicago-based company's annual meeting here that his firm has been holding discussions with "nationally-known gas companies in the expectation that we will be able to expand the energy services menu that we offer."
...
Unicom subsidiary Commonwealth Edison Co. was once a major natural-gas supplier but got out of that business in 1954, when it spun off Northern Illinois Gas Co., now a unit of Naperville-based Nicor Inc.
...
The announcement ends speculation in the industry about the direction that the nation's third-largest electric utility would take after being freed from regulatory constraints. Edison, with 13 power plants capable of producing in excess of 20,000 megawatts, has been a major supplier of excess power to other utilities for years.
...
... Those amounts combined equal almost a third of Unicom's reported $6.9 billion in 1996 revenue.
Unicom Corp. , an underperforming electric company looking for new energy, tapped John W. Rowe, the head of New England Electric System , to serve as its new chief executive officer.
...
His experience could prove helpful at Unicom, which is now similarly bracing for the loss of its monopoly in the northern Illinois electric-power market. But because the parent of Commonwealth Edison Co. is saddled with an expensive and operationally subpar nuclear program, its electric rates are substantially higher than those of nearby rivals.
...
Mr. Rowe will assume the posts of chairman, president and CEO at the nation's biggest nuclear utility on March 16. His predecessor, James J. O'Connor, served as Unicom's chairman and CEO for the past 18 years and played a key role in the company's ill-starred nuclear buildup. Mr. O'Connor, 60, disclosed in October that he planned to step down, saying "the search for a new leader who will be here to take the company into the competitive market should begin now."
The Peco Energy Company, Philadelphia's electric utility, and the Unicom Corporation, the owner of the electric company that serves Chicago, announced yesterday that they planned a $16 billion merger that would create the nation's largest collection of nuclear plants.
In one of the largest deals in the utilities industry to date, Chicago's Unicom Corp. and Peco Energy Co. of Philadelphia said Thursday they have agreed to merge.
...
Unicom, with 1998 sales of $7.3 billion, owns Commonwealth Edison, which serves more than 3.4 million customers across northern Illinois.
Unicom Corp. is selling the last of its non-nuclear power plants for an unexpectedly high price tag of $4.8 billion, but none of that cash will find its way into customers' pockets.
Instead, Unicom said the sale will allow the company to further write down the book value of its nuclear fleet and to fund some new business ventures in the non-regulated marketplace. The sale also moves Unicom's major subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison Co., more toward becoming a transmission and distribution operation than a power-generating one.
Pennsylvania state regulators have unanimously approved the proposed merger between Philadelphia's Peco Energy Co. and Chicago-based Unicom Corp., parent of Commonwealth Edison.
Let's get this straight: Unicom Corp., whose Commonwealth Edison Co. seems to lurch from one crisis to another, leaving angry customers without power, suddenly wants to double in size and take on twice the responsibility?
For some people, Unicom's intention to merge with Philadelphia's Peco Energy Co. is somewhere between illogical and nightmarish.
Let's smash a bottle of bubbly on that prow and christen it the S.S. Unicom 2--"2" because its sister structure already plies the sidewalks at the northeast corner of State and Adams Streets. Both belong to Chicago-based Unicom Thermal Technologies, which pumps cool water to the air-conditioning systems of Loop office buildings.
A sister company of Commonwealth Edison Co. is planning to build a third facility to supply chilled water for air-conditioning office buildings in downtown Chicago.
A spokesman for Unicom Thermal Technologies Inc. said its first plant, located at State and Adams Streets, is completed and has begun limited operations. The company will break ground later this month for a second facility, at Franklin and Van Buren Streets.
Plans for the third unit, which haven't been announced publicly, call for building a cooling facility in a parking structure near the new 28-story headquarters of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois under contruction at Columbus Drive and Randolph Street.
To beleaguered Edison, and parent Unicom Corp., Rowe, 52, brings a welcome resume: CEO of two utility companies, plenty of experience with nuclear power, key roles in three turnarounds, deep familiarity with deregulation, a background in utility and regulatory law, a reputation as a demanding but compassionate boss.
Everyone predicted the path to deregulated power in Illinois would be a perilous one filled with pitfalls and problems. But what a surprise that one of the first curves on this road would be what to do with all that money Commonwealth Edison is getting for selling its non-nuclear generating plants.
A financial windfall of $4.8 billion is hardly what anyone expected. Even Unicom Corp.--ComEd's parent--admits this offer from California's Edison International was on the very high end of what it expected.
Unicom Thermal Technologies Inc., which supplies chilled water to cool many buildings in the Loop, is expanding its service to the giant Merchandise Mart and adjoining Apparel Center.
"We're digging in LaSalle Street at night right now to connect the Mart to our existing system," says Donald A. Petkus, president and CEO of the firm, which, like Edison, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Unicom Corp.
Unicom Thermal started in business in 1995 when it built a facility at State and Adams Streets to make ice. It uses the ice to produce chilled water, which is piped underground to nearby office buildings.
Two years ago, Edison's parent, Unicom Corp., created a subsidiary that uses ice water instead of direct power to provide air conditioning to downtown office buildings.
Unicom is the holding company for Commonwealth Edison (ComEd), the 4th largest publicly owned electric utility in the US. ComEd's service area covers the northern portion of Illinois (including Chicago) — representing about 70% of the state's population. Nuclear power plants are the company's main source of power, generating about 71% of its electricity in 1994. Unicom was formed in 1994 as a holding company for all of ComEd's operations in order to provide more flexibility as the company prepares to deal with increased competition created by deregulation. The company formed Unicom Enterprises to handle its unregulated businesses, including Unicom Thermal, which provides cooling services to large buildings in …
A group of Chicago businessmen formed Western Edison Light in 1882. It was reorganized as Chicago Edison by its 39 shareholders in 1887, and under the leadership of Samuel Insull, it bought its main competitor, Chicago Arc Light & Power, in 1893. In 1898 the company created a holding company, Commonwealth Electric, to buy other power companies in the Chicago area. Commonwealth and Chicago Edison merged in 1907 to form Commonwealth Edison.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on BambooHR, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Saqib (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I saw your comment on the Steak and BJ DRV. Thank you for adopting your new, more compact, presentation. I know we often don't agree on notability issues, but I do always appreciate the effort you put into research. This new style will make your contributions more effective and influential. -- RoySmith(talk)17:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words about my research. I usually use a more compact presentation when I post 20 or more sources. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DigitalOcean (2nd nomination) from 2015 for one example. When I post fewer sources, I generally use the longer format as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robinhood Markets to make it clear to the AfD participants and closing admin why I am supporting retention. Too often article headlines do not do justice to the article content in explaining a subject's significance.
I haven’t had access to a computer, I though you might want to write one on Standex International NYSE: SXI founded 1955 employs 5400 employees based in Salem NH I though you might want to start a stub nyse companies are highest priority. I can write one on Bakers Pride Oven Company one of its subsidiaries which pretty much every pizzeria uses. Valoemtalkcontrib09:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@Binksternet: Bad decision. As I posted following the discussion:
This is another improperly hidden AfD discussion. No notice was posted on the affected articles. While a Bot summoned some comments apparently, no effort was made to contact the numerous editors who have contributed to this series of articles, including myself. Instead, only six commenters forced this decision to delete a massive amount of content.
When you improperly conduct such a discussion, obfuscating it from the involved, interested parties, this is designed to achieve a result without achieving a consensus. As a result, you have deleted the majority of seven articles compiled over more than a decade in secrecy.
Trackinfo (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Started Unicom Corp, can you verify and correct any mistakes? Also for Sunpentown I am getting conflicting information some sources say this is a Taiwanese company founded in 1985 [12]. I am also getting information that this is an American company founded in 1993. [13], [14]. Valoemtalkcontrib19:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Very nice work on the articles! I've done some light copyediting of them. Regarding Sunpentown (Google Translate calls it "Shangpeng Church"), from the Google Translate of a page from Baidu:
1985 Shangpeng Church Electrochemical Co., Ltd. was established in Taipei, Taiwan, began to join the research and development of induction cooker In 1987 in the seven industrial areas in Taiwan to buy plant, received international orders, product sales in foreign markets.
...
In 1993, the United States established Shangpeng Church Company, Canada and North America market to fully explore and invest in the establishment of Wanjiafu volume stores, won the ISO-9002 international quality system certification
So the Taiwanese company was founded in 1985 and an American subsidiary was established in 1993.
Regarding Aroma (company), the sources in the article largely call it "Aroma Housewares", so if these sources are representative, that is the common name.
In an indication that drastic reductions may be necessary, Ferrer said Farberware one of the largest producers of stainless-steel cookware in the United States reported anemic annual earnings of $1 million on sales of $125 million in fiscal year 1995.
...
Union members fear that Syratech, a $169 million company that sells sterling flatware and gift items, may want to cut its manufacturing costs drastically by importing cookware from Asia. That would end Farberware's production in the United States.earn between $6 and $9 an hour a modest sum, but still far higher than wages for comparable positions in China or Malaysia, for example. After 30 years with Farberware, Solinto earns $14 an hour.
...
For workers, the trouble started when Farberware was carved up between two companies, neither of which assumed the lease on its factory or the obligation to satisfy the union's labor contract, Burton confirmed.
Instead, Syratech bought the right to Farberware's name, principal businesses, and machinery. Lifetime Hoan Corp. of Westbury, on Long Island, purchased a 99 year royalty-free right to use the Farberware name in marketing knives, cutting boards, and other kitchen products. It also bought the company's retail outlets, Ferrer said. The two companies paid about $52 million.
U.S. Industries of Iselin sold the company to meet an impending debt-service payment, Ferrer said.
Farberware is a mass-marketed brand that is sold at Wal-Mart and other big-box retailers. Pfaltzgraff does a lot of its business through traditional department stores.
Both Farberware stores in Pennsylvania, including one in Gettysburg, are among the 27 scheduled to close by early 2008.
Lifetime bought Pfaltzgraff in 2005, during the breakup of the Susquehanna Pfaltzgraff Co. that called York home for nearly two centuries.
Not much sticks to Farberware, and here's why: The brand name has changed hands several times. Each manufacturer backs only the pans that it made, and none use the same company for warranty work.
Your pan was made in 1993 by Syratech, which contracts with All American Lighting Corp. (aka Farberware Home Products) of Berwick, Pa., for recoating. That's where you sent your pan.
Unfortunately, All American fell behind on recoating orders. The Better Business Bureau has received numerous complaints, and frustrated consumers regularly call Meyer Corp., the current manufacturer of Farberware pans, to appeal for help in getting their pans returned. Meyer backs the warranty on the pans it has manufactured since 1997, but it refers owners of earlier Farberware back to Syratech for help. Syratech sends them back to All American, and, like you, they wind up frustrated.
However, before answering this question we decided to check the ubiquitous World Wide Web because we felt our information about Farberware was not comprehensive. We knew that the company was started by the Farber Brothers, but we did not know when. We knew that they are still in business making kitchen items and appliances. We knew that over the years they have made chrome wares, silver-plated items, aluminum ware and a wide variety of other metal objects.
We also knew that they had made chrome holders for glassware for the Cambridge Glass Co. of Cambridge, Ohio. Cambridge was founded in 1901 and continued to make glassware until 1958, and it appears to have used the Farberware holders during the second quarter of the 20th century. For a time, it put glass bowls into Farberware holders to make stemware, and it used Farberware holders on cream and sugar sets and on jugs and pitchers. There was even a Farberware frame used to hold decanters, which is a device called a "tantalus."
Other readers have asked about Farberware and the lifetime guarantee.
Farberware doesn't handle repairs of cookware bought before 1997, when the company became a part of Meyer Corp. A company in Berwick, Pa., bought the rights to repair Farberware cookware made before 1997.
People who bought Farberware after March 1997 can call Farberware in Vallejo, Calif., for information about repairs. The phone number is (800) 809-7166.
The repair company in Pennsylvania is not tied to Farberware. We found several complaints on the Internet about the repair company, from bounced checks to slow repairs.
In 1981, the state had leased the Farberware Inc. factory building, the borough's largest, to U.S. Industries, a conglomerate in Iselin, N.J. In exchange for state and city tax breaks and reduced rent, the company had pledged to operate a cookware factory at the site for 25 years. But last fall, the plant closed after a string of events that began a year ago, when U.S. Industries sold Farberware's name and assets to a Boston company.
...
Last April, U.S. Industries sold the Farberware name and assets to the Syratech Corporation of Boston. At first, the factory workers regarded the entrepreneur who owns Syratech, Leonard Florence, as something of a godsend. In meetings with state, city and union officials, Mr. Florence proposed turning the factory into an employee-owned plant. But soon after, he abruptly announced that he had licensed the Farberware name for 200 years to an overseas cookware manufacturer.
Without a well-known brand like Farberware, the factory would have had little chance of making it in the competitive cookware market. Syratech's licensing of the name essentially broke Farberware's ties to New York City, where Simon Farber, a Russian immigrant, founded the company exactly 100 years ago.
This principle is widely used in professional ovens; it's less often found in the home, although Farberware has had a stand-alone unit on the market for at least 15 years. This is the appliance that I have used with great satisfaction.
The Farberware is a box with a door in the front; similarly configured models are made by Maxim and Toastmaster. Besides the Jet-Stream in the cylindrical design, you have those under such brands as Welbilt and Fairsound.
...
So: Am I ready to turn in my Farberware for a Jet-Stream? No way. I rate the Farberware as the superior machine for somewhere around the same amount of money. On balance, it is also the more convenient, if only because you don't have to bother with expansion sets, and it can be switched to conventional broiling. If you're interested in getting into convection cooking at a bargain-basement level, you might look at the Toastmaster, which I have seen discounted to $100.
Farberware Millennium is one of the finest cookware innovations with which I've had the pleasure to play. Unlike early generations of nonstick coatings _ Teflon, Silverstone and the like _ Farberware Millennium has a cooking surface that is as close to indestructible as any I've tried.
Having all but given up on such pans _ most such coatings easily scratch or even peel, and/or their metal bases all too readily warp _ this line from one of the industry's stalwarts was a genuine surprise.
...
As for indestructibility, Farberware is so confident of its line that it backs Millennium with a "20-year Never-Stick Guarantee." The company also offers a comparable line of electric appliances.
Consumer Reports magazine took it up on that challenge in its January 1992 issue. After subjecting a Millennium pan to 1,000 back-and-forth scrapes by a metal spatula, "The spatula wore a smooth path in the Millennium pan but never scratched it." Comparable abuse to a Silverstone Supra pan by CR technicians gouged it.
Windmere-Durable Holdings said Tuesday that it has acquired licensing rights to the Farberware name and plans to sell electric products under the brand. Terms weren't disclosed.
Lifetime Hoan Corp. uses the Farberware name for cutlery and kitchenware. Syratech Corp. owns Farberware's corporate name and makes pots, pans and electric appliances.
Lifetime Hoan, a Westbury, N.Y.-based designer and distributor of household cutlery, tableware and cutting boards, acquired Farberware from U.S. Industries in a joint venture with Syratech last April.
The designers at Farberware, makers of stainless steel cookware and kitchen appliances for more than 90 years, are not ones to ignore cooking trends.
Now, they are catering to the trend in healthy cooking with a new rice cooker/food steamer, which enables the cook to keep the nutrients and flavor in fish, rice, vegetables and fruit by cooking with steam.
A built-in sensor automatically switches to a "keep warm" mode after the food is cooked. The steamer has Farberware's classic stainless steel and black exterior with a non-stick inner liner that can be removed for easy cleaning.
Samuel Farber was born in Manhattan on Nov. 16, 1924, and reared in Yonkers. Pots and pans were in his pedigree: an uncle, Simon Farber, founded the cookware maker Farberware on the Lower East Side of Manhattan in 1900. His father, Louis, helped found Farber Brothers, makers of glass and silver-plated serving ware.
For Russian-Jewish immigrant Simon Farber, 1905 was a memorable year. It was in 1905 that the young tinsmith was able to move his growing five- year-old metalworking business from a cramped, gaslit basement in Manhattan's Lower East Side to a more modern and spacious location at Broadway and Grand streets. Also that year Simon met, and shortly thereafter married, Ella Sachs, a teacher at the Norwich Business College in Connecticut. An attractive, intelligent woman, Ella quickly became involved in her husband's business, and together they built it into one of the leading and most innovative companies in the housewares industry. The couple introduced the first line of Farberware, silver-and-nickel- plated serving accessories and giftware, in 1910. Other notable products made by their factory included clamp-on reading lamps, chrome-plated accessories, electric coffee percolators, and electric table broilers. Simon and Ella (who died in 1956) had two sons, Isidor and Milton, both of whom later assumed leadership of the company.
Two of the best-known subsidiaries the Kidde acquisition gave Hanson were top- selling cookware maker Farberware and whirlpool bath pioneer Jacuzzi. Farberware, a maker of nickel-, chrome-, and silver-plated cookware, was founded by Russian immigrant Simon Farber in New York City in 1900. Kidde acquired the Farberware line in 1966.
The year 1900 meant much more than the start of a new century for Simon Farber ; it was the start of a whole new life. lt began in Manhattan's Lower East Side at 66 Norfolk Street, where, in a dingy downstairs basement shop he had his name lettered on the window. Soon he had five men working there, pounding sheets of ... of the following: 1910— lntroduced the first line of "Farberware" serving accessories and gift- ware novelties. They were silver-plated and nickel-plated. 1914—
Milton H. Farber, the retired president of the Bronx company that manufactures Farberware pots, pans and appliances, died on Tuesday at his home in Atlantis, Fla.
...
Mr. Farber joined the family business as a teen-ager. The company, S. W. Farber Inc., which manufactured gift trays and racks, was founded in 1897 by his father, Simon, a Russian emigrant who started as a match peddler on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. The family opened a plant in Brooklyn next to the Williamsburg Bridge. A clamp-on light invented so Mr. Farber could sleep while his wife read in bed propelled the company's success.
The second generation took the reins of the enterprise during the 1940's, with Milton becoming vice president for production while his brother, Isadore, became president and head of sales. Two brothers-in-law were also executives.
The company moved to the Bronx in 1944 and expanded into a new line of stainless steel pots and pans with bonded aluminum bottoms for better heat conduction. Dubbed Farberware, it became a leading brand of cookware. Next came a line of electrical appliances.
Peter B. Cameron used to think that Revere Ware made the best pots and pans, but that was when he was president of the cookware company. His switch to head Farberware, a major competitor, was announced yesterday, prompting him to say, with newfound loyalty, I would describe Farberware as far superior.
Mr. Cameron, 41 years old, will be president and chief executive of Farberware, one of the Bronx's biggest employers with a work force of 1,000. Farberware describes itself as the world's largest maker of cookware and stainless steel electric kitchen products, including fry pans, toasters and woks. It was part of Kidde Inc. until last year when Kidde was bought by Hanson P.L.C., a diversified British company.
When Walter Kidde acquired S.W. Farber, a manufacturer of high- quality, aluminum-clad stainless-steel and electrical appliances, it broadened the Farberware brand's exposure in retail channels. Where formerly Farberware had been pursuing a very selective distribution strategy commensurate with its high- quality image, Kidde sold Farberware through medium-level department stores, but not to discounters. Farberware sales were high in department stores because S.W. Farber supplied demonstrator-sales clerks in stores where Farberware appliances were sold.
Farber percolator coffee-makers retailed for $30 and sometimes for $35 in 1972. They were available in limited models but were of high-quality craftsmanship, and were promoted using and advertising campaign which spent less per sales dollar than General Electric's campaign. Farberware was most popular on the East Coast, particularly in New York, near the S.W. Farber Bronx factory, in stores like Bloomingdale's.
.–Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 19:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Masa Fukuda at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~ RobTalk 14:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sagecandor -- Sagecandor (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
; see Talk:Winmark for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sagecandor -- Sagecandor (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Implemented this wording in the article. I think this is the best we can do while maintaining equal weight and fairness to the situation. -- Dane talk 23:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
).On a side-note, though you seem to be extremely proficient in retrieving-sources about a subject, 50 sources(with blockquotes) are way too-too-too much.Cheers:)Winged Blades Godric 06:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
_(14752756965).jpg)
_(14573454469).jpg)
.jpg)
