Jump to content

User talk:Cindamuse/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

New York Republican State Committee

I have made some significant updates to the article according to the flags that you posted on my page earlier. If you have any suggestions or comments on how to further improve the article please let me know. User:jjgawro —Preceding undated comment added 05:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

Brunell new page patrol

Hi! We have a comment on the course's discussion page, and I wanted to check in with you to make sure things are going okay with our students. Is there a problem with content, formatting, or process that I can help students navigate? Thanks once again for your continued assistance! Best, Adrianpauw (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Genting Singapore PLC

Cindy, based on your notes, I have edited the Genting Singapore page. I added more notable references and reworded the page. Please let me know if it can be moved to the main space. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nelson78/Genting_Singapore_PLC

Nelson78 (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Richard von Krafft-Ebing

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Richard von Krafft-Ebing. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

New York Republican State Committee

I have made some significant updates to the article according to the flags that you posted on my page earlier. If you have any suggestions or comments on how to further improve the article please let me know. User:jjgawro —Preceding undated comment added 05:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

Brunell new page patrol

Hi! We have a comment on the course's discussion page, and I wanted to check in with you to make sure things are going okay with our students. Is there a problem with content, formatting, or process that I can help students navigate? Thanks once again for your continued assistance! Best, Adrianpauw (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Genting Singapore PLC

Cindy, based on your notes, I have edited the Genting Singapore page. I added more notable references and reworded the page. Please let me know if it can be moved to the main space. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nelson78/Genting_Singapore_PLC

Nelson78 (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

A request for oversight

Hi Cindy and thanks for your input on the speedy deletion question on my talk page. I'm just curious if there's a Wiki policy about using screencaps or web-page saves as references as in the same topic, a reference blog has been edited to remove the cited material and now another Wiki User is claiming that it never said what was quoted. Also, when it comes to interfering with another posters posts on a talk page (in particular http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ace_Baker#Blog_Was_Hacked and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAce_Baker&action=historysubmit&diff=465401420&oldid=465289464), are there any ramifications to a User doing this to another User's post? TIA Natty10000 (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Hey there. Overall, I would recommend making a report here or here (one or the other). Generally, if he is concerned with how he is being portrayed in the article, he should contact the BLP noticeboard or send an email directly to the WMF response team. He clearly has a conflict of interest and should not be editing the article due to his inability to maintain neutrality. There's also the noticeboard pertaining to reliable sources, which should definitively address issues regarding the use of primary and self-published sources inappropriately used. Note that while there are clear issues with this article, the edit warring is also a concern. If the noticeboards do not bring resolve, I recommend mediation. I haven't involved myself, because I was hoping the two of you would be able to work it out. That said, I believe that making a report to one of the noticeboards will be beneficial in bringing this article into compliance. (In my opinion, the subject is only notable for his patent. However, the claim is not supported in accordance with the general notability guidelines. He could squeak by if reliable and independent sources can be found to support that he has made a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field", in accordance with WP:ANYBIO.) As far as refactoring your talk page comments, while this is generally frowned upon, assuming good faith, the editor clearly broke up your comment in an attempt to more directly address your concerns. Hope this helps. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 22:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Ideally, a middle-ground equally unsatisfactory to both would be able to be struck. However, I suspect that anything other than his view will be unacceptable to him. In any case, I'll try the methods you've suggested and see if we can have some Peace on Wiki. :) Natty10000 (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Editing sources

I'm doing the Ohio Republican Party for a project, I can't seem to reedit a couple of my sources, so I can add titles to them. Emlamb (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

  • I've gone through the article and made a quick copyedit and cleanup of the citations. You can find a referencing cheat at this link: [1]. Let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

Help with moving my page

Hi, I have just finished editing a page by adding new contents and reorganizing it and I was wondering if you can help me move it from my sandbox to the actual page. The page already exists, so I am unable to move it there. The page I'm trying to move my content to is Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Thanks. Ylor916 (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

BLPPROD on Mete Sozen

Hi Cindamuse. I see you declined the BLPPROD I reinstated on Mete Sozen, here. I disagree that the supplied source is reliable. It is neither independent, nor published. The article therefore does not meet WP:BLP. Rather than edit war, I've tagged the article for inadequate source. Could you take another look, however, as I am concerned that we are leaving an article that does not comply with BLP. Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 08:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

  • While the reference certainly isn't independent, it meets the requirement for reliability. Not sure what you mean by unpublished. Of course, it's published. What is your thinking here? I have removed the PROD in accordance with the deletion policy, which allows for removal following the addition of just one reliable source. Removal of the BLP PROD does not require independence or offline sourcing. Just reliable. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 08:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Per WP:RS, published refers to a source which has a reputation for independent fact checking. Examples given are the New York Times and the Cambridge University Press. Staff pages at universities are generally written by the academics themselves and are not subject to editorial oversight. This means the source does not in fact meet [{WP:RS]] because it is neither independent nor published. [{WP:BLP]] is clear that for biographical articles the standards of verifiability are especially high and that articles lacking proper reliable sources should be deleted after a ten day grace period. Because the source given is neither published nor independent, it does not meet the standard of WP:RS so the BLPPROD should be reinstated. Sparthorse (talk) 08:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
      • The process merely requires the presence of a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article. The article states that the subject is a professor at a particular university. The citation provided is from the university supporting the specific claim. Clearly reliable. This is sufficient to forgo the sticky process. No harm; no foul. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 09:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Request Constructive Input

You've put tags on the 3 year old article about me Ace Baker. I have edited the article in a way I thought addressed the issues. You have disagreed, and reapplied the tags, and threatened to ban me. Please come to the article talk page and suggest what you feel should be done with the article. Best Regards Ace Baker (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi Ace, I have communicated on the talk page and your user talk page with specific and constructive input regarding the article and the removal of the maintenance templates. I have also provided information on communicating with the Wikimedia Foundation team that works with editors unhappy with their portrayal in articles. While you certainly have a record of editing this article, edits made have failed to address the issues identified. In essence, you have merely reverted the maintenance tags, insisting that everybody else fall in line with your desires. In order to establish notability, the article requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There is clearly a conflict of interest with this article. I would like to invite you to review our behavioral guidelines pertaining to conflicts of interest and autobiographies. These guidelines provide information about reliable, independent, and self-published sources. I noticed that you mentioned that your article has existed for three years, implying that this should somehow exempt your article from compliance. Honestly, some articles remain undetected for years. I apologize that we weren't able to take care of this sooner. But now, we're in a great place to make sure that all the issues are addressed, which should successfully bring the article into compliance. Please note that no one is threatening to ban you in any way. When an editor continues to disregard warnings, such as your actions in removing maintenance templates as cautioned on and removed from your talk page, this generally results in a blocking of your account until we can satisfactorily determine that you understand the community guidelines and are willing to work accordingly. Ace, no one is against you here. Two seasoned editors have provided information for you about the community guidelines and policies, which are continually disregarded. Speaking for myself, I have no interest in this article outside of ensuring compliance. I arrived at this article in response to a request for help. As I have stated, I am more than willing to help bring this article into compliance myself. However, I am not interested in jumping into the fray with you and Natty10000 in an edit war. I have no horse in this race. Again, if you have questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 19:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but all you've done so far is indicate what should NOT be done with the article, I.e. I should NOT remove the tags. I removed the tags, because in my opinion, having carefully reviewed the suggested guideline, that version of the article was in strict compliance. Clearly you disagree, and feel the article has "multiple issues". You have, thusfar, offered precisely zero input on what should be done. Merely saying "it should meet Wiki guidelines" is a vague platitude. Ace Baker (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but all you've done so far is indicate what should NOT be done with the article, I.e. I should NOT remove the tags. I removed the tags, because in my opinion, having carefully reviewed the suggested guideline, that version of the article was in strict compliance. Clearly you disagree, and feel the article has "multiple issues". You have, thusfar, offered precisely zero input on what should be done. Merely saying "it should meet Wiki guidelines" is a vague platitude. Ace Baker (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Actually, I have offered quite a bit of information and resources. And in areas where you have misinterpreted the guidelines, I have provided detailed explanations. I have also provided successive warnings about the removal of maintenance templates, but you have chosen to ignore them. Have you been able to review the policies and guidelines that have been linked for you here and on your talk page? They certainly aren't vague. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 21:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
        • If it is not notable, as you suggest, then you should nominate it for deletion. You haven't done that. Obviously the previous editors think it is notable. You are the only person so far who doesn't, as far as I know. Similarly, if the current citations are invalid, as you suggest, then you should remove those parts of the article. Obviously the previous editors think they are valid, and you are the only person who doesn't, as far as I know. Also, I have reviewed the material on conflict of interest. I have no more a conflict of interest in trying to correct the article about me than John Seigenthaler had in wanting to correct the article about him. Finally, it simply not true that you "have no horse in this race". You were contacted by Natty10000, and you responded by explaining how you were going to derail the article. And derail it, you have. Clearly your tags and threats of banning me mean you're taking sides. Why don't you threaten to ban Natty10000 for repeatedly inserting false, unsourced material in the article about me?Ace Baker (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
          • I have chosen not to nominate the article for deletion, because the claim about the ringtones indicates notability. My hope is that you will follow through on the instructions received and add citations to the article that reflect significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of anything related to you, your work, and anything of which you have editorial input and/or control. There's a vast difference between you and Mr. Seigenthaler. He's never edited on Wikipedia, let alone the article that presents his life and career. He respected the process and rather than editing with a conflict of interest and edit warring with the community, he followed through and contacted the Wikimedia Foundation with his concerns. And I've given you that same advice. As far as having no horse in this race or dog in this fight? I never said anything close that would indicate that I would consider derailing an article. I offered input and advice that would benefit both of you. Please know I have not made any threats to ban you in any solar system. Or on Wikipedia. This is clearly stated in my remarks above. Have you been able to read them? One more thing. If I was truly against you in any way, would I have went up against another editor that attempted to delete another one of your articles, i.e., Mete Sozen? Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 21:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
            • When you Cindamuse say you "have not made any threats to ban you" that is simply a provable falsehood. You wrote:
"Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 13:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)"
Then you wrote:
"This is your last warning. The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Ace Baker, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 17:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)"
Here is the link to my talk page where you issued the threats (which I believe is in our solar system): User_talk:Ace_Baker When you issue such easily disproven falsehoods, it makes me believe that you believe that you operate with impunity. Ace Baker (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The comments that you are reading are escalated template messages that were placed in response to disruptive editing. None of the messages mention a ban. For further clarification, see WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK. You can also read about template messages here. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 02:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Central Notices

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Central Notices. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low Quality: Low to High Quality: High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs   Cleanup
Quality: Low Nikki & Rich   Quality: Low Digby (blogger)
Quality: Low Zaldy Zshornack   Quality: Low Here I Am to Worship (song)
Quality: Low Center for Military Readiness   Quality: Medium Sam McCall
Quality: Low Robert Brown (Georgia politician)   Merge
Quality: Low Ellen Lowell   Quality: Low Neal Keller Alcott
Quality: Low St. George's Cathedral, Addis Ababa   Quality: Low Winners Bracket
Quality: Low Sant'Agata Bolognese   Quality: Low Hannah Tompkins
Quality: Low Damian Grimaldi   Add sources
Quality: Low Iulla Antonia   Quality: Low Sarah Elizabeth Randall
Quality: Low Shamil Khan   Quality: Low Jude Cooper Bauer
Quality: Low Sampaguita (singer)   Quality: Medium Snellville, Georgia
Quality: Low Marvin Pierce   Wikify
Quality: Low Edward Shaw (bishop)   Quality: Low Lohegaon
Quality: Low Jane Penvellyn   Quality: Low Maine Women's Lobby
Quality: Low Sierra Esteban   Quality: Low TATA AIG Life Insurance
Quality: Low Valluvar Kottam   Expand
Quality: Low Cafe Wha?   Quality: Medium Brooke English
Quality: Low CFQK-FM   Quality: Low List of Victorian government agencies
Quality: Low Skulptur Projekte Münster   Quality: Low Alexis Davis

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Moving the Sandbox

Thank you for moving the sandbox. Cheers. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey There

I am only trying to improve the Bolinas page. Sorry for inferring anykind of authority. I am at best testing the waters. I am very new to editing. --Thaavatar (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Welcome to Wikipedia! Just keep in mind that we are a collaborative project and therein, individual ownership or management of articles is inappropriate. If you need help navigating the community or understanding the encyclopedia's policies and guidelines, please feel free to contact me. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 17:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Hey, yeah I'm definately still getting used to all of the policies and such. Again, not claiming ownership. But, I do have a couple "technical" questions if you have the time to answer them.
  1. . Whom should I contact before making a revision to an article I'm interested in editing?
  2. . Is there some way to gain consensus about how the page should turn out (other than posting as I have in the Talk pages)?

Thanks, --Thaavatar (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Cind, you have proven to be more advanced an editor than I. You will probably find a ton of erroneous edits I made, thanks for teh help. >:3

--Thaavatar (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Individual using multiple names to edit a Wiki entry

I just noticed a rather interesting specialty of one user (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BillPlummer). Natty10000 (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

parkour discussion moved

Cindy, I've moved this discussion to the Ryan Doyle article discussion page. It seemed completely isomorphic to if we'd had it there, and I feel that the documentation of our lines of thought may be productive for others to learn or comment on. If this was a poor decision, feel free to correct me on it. It seemed a no-brainer. Thanks as always for your help. Squish7 (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI... if you happened to read the response I wrote when I moved the article between then and this post, I seriously revised it; I took a more careful look at what you'd said. Sometimes I feel the need to apologize because I'm never sure how people interpret my tone. Squish7 (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Bolinas article

Hey Cind, anybody who takes a look at Bolinas' "View history", will clearly see that I have contributed all recent edits to this Bolinas page, (+508). Unless you were worried that I might be offending myself (which naturally, is doubtful in this case), or if you were or are personally offended by my comment/suggestion I apologize. Please refrain from "breathing down my neck" on the talking-page, as you can clearly see I am trying desperately to improve this small community's article. You might even be talking to Bolinas' "Most Interested Person" (Infact looking at the less than 500 revisions of this article, and seeing as I have contributed more than any single other user before me, it is safe to say that I am definitely the "Person Most Interested in Bolinas" as of this comment). If you intend on remaining such an active editor (or whatever it is you deem yourself, Wikipedian?) here on Wikipedia, may I suggest that you learn to differentiate between constructive criticism and degradation, before making wild claims as too my "offensive" behavior, lest You yourself offend somebody (again, these are just a few friendly suggestions). Your's truly and neutrally, -->:3 Thaavatar (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

  • No idea to what you're referring. I'm certainly not offended by anything you have done. You presented several questions in several different sections on the article's talk page. In an effort to be thorough and provide as many resources as possible, I spent quite a bit of time answering your questions and providing guidance and links to further information. Can you be specific about what brings you offense? In any regard, it certainly isn't my intention. As far as the 508+ edits, please remember to use the preview option, which helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes, the page history, and the watchlists of other editors. As a side note, yes, Wikipedia editors are termed as "Wikipedians". Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 18:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

Tricking

Note: I am responding on your talkpage because that is what I am used to, not responding on my own page.

Before I bring up the subject of the article, you should know that I am just a wiki-editor in the loosest definition of the term. I have not read, know, nor do I care about Wikipedia's guidelines. I am only a few steps above an IP randomly editing articles to his whim in that I exercise common sense when editing articles. That having been said, I am thoroughly surprised you did not revert the article back to your edit once you found out about my revision. Most higher authority wiki-editors would do that, in which I would perceive as a threat and fight for my revision, but usually ultimately lose and back down since I do not know how to report conflict edits,I do not know the guidelines, and I have no authority. Thank you, sincerely, for not being a complete ass to me.

Having said that, the article of Martial Arts Tricking is already a losing battle for me. The sport was created only about ten years ago and is an extremely underground sport at that; consequently there are almost no "professional", "primary", and "reliable" references and sources for the information in the article. Most of the information on tricking comes from YouTube. Doing a general sweep on four pages from googling 'tricking martial arts news' brings up only two "reliable" articles: [2] and [3]. Most of the information in the article is just information provided by its practitioners, myself included. I feel that the article does a fairly decent job of informing people about what Tricking is, its origins, and its culture. I do however also realize that most of this information is unaccounted for which probably would be construed as unreliable.

Ultimately, it is up to you and whatever other higher authority editor decides to do with the article if they pass upon it. I would prefer if you leave it be as I feel that I am a decent enough editor to maintain the accuracy of (most of) the article and I also seem to be one of the few editors taking an interest in the article itself. Those are my two cents, thank you for your time. Myominane (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Hey there! Thanks for contacting me. I'm sorry to hear that you have experienced less than enjoyable interaction with others on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it is actually rather common. We have a behavioral guideline called "Bold, revert, discuss", that is often misinterpreted. The maintenance tags at the top of the article place the article in a queue for knowledgeable, experienced, or seasoned editors to work on cleaning up the article to ensure that it meets the policies and guidelines of the encyclopedia. Editors work "boldly" to cleanup the article. When others "revert" the cleanup, we are directed to "discuss" the noncompliance issues with the editor that reverted the work. Oftentimes, like you have experienced, some editors choose to follow a "bold, revert, revert, attack, revert, attack, and revert" process, generally ending up being reported to the administrators' noticeboard where one or both editors have their editing privileges suspended or blocked. Nobody wants that. The board for edit wars is found here. As far as the article, I'll restore the cleanup and add some sources I found through the links you provided above. While the second link came up empty, I found this link [4] on the same website. Would that work? I've added some books about the subject in a "Further reading" section. If you are familiar with any other books, or have access to any, we can use those as sources as well. We can't use the text, but we can include information in the article based on the book content and written in our own words. In essence, we're not limited to using only online references. Anytime you have questions or need assistance navigating Wikipedia, please feel free to contact me. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 10:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah I'm sorry, the second link I posted I accidentally deleted the '.html' off the end of the URL. You found the exact same article though. Sadly, since you are restoring the cleanup, all the advice given to newcomers will be deleted. If you could spare the video examples though, that would be a nice thought. Reading the article, I can say that the only part I am unknowledgeable about are: the last sentence of the History section, and the Team tricking section. All the other sections I personally revised, and I also just noticed that the latter half of the article, starting from Progression caters to newcomers who would need an introduction on how to begin tricking. I would prefer this part being left in for those who seek advice on it, but it's not a detrimental loss to the article. The Media exposure section doesn't have to be removed as I can just cite a non-imDB ref to it.
Thank you for the helpful insight to Wikipedia's inner workings. I won't feel as helpless now when presented with an edit conflict. Myominane (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors

Elections are currently underway for our third tranche of Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, 16 December – 23:59 UTC, 31 December. All GOCE members, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are five candidates vying for four positions. Your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Lee Tae Gon

Hi. I hope you don't mind, but I've declined your A10 speedy deletion request at Lee tae gon. Although it says "Im Ho", it looks to be about someone else - the details do not match at all. And there actually is a Korean actor called Lee Tae Gon, and his details match this article - it looks like it might have been taken from http://wiki(dot)d-addicts(dot)com/Lee_Tae_Gon, or something similar. (I've had to disguise the URL, as it is apparently blacklisted here) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi! No, of course I don't mind. ;) Good find on the d-addicts website. I looked and couldn't find anything. I think the user actually used the Im Ho article as a template of sorts (I cleaned up most of the initial work), then tried to merge the information from the d-addicts site. In the current article, both the Im Ho and Tae Gon articles indicate that each person performed the same role in the same film, which is not accurate. However, based on your find, I can clean up the article to a stub and look for more information. Thanks for your help on this! Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 01:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Just wanted to touch bases with you. Lee Tae Gon is actually nominated for a national acting award in Korea, the equivalent of the Academy Award. His fan base is huge. The Tom Cruise of Korea. LOL I expanded the article, but lacking full understanding of the language, had a difficult time discerning which sources were reliable. I would appreciate another pairs of eyes if you have time. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 07:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

My Article about BioNeutra

Thanks for your message and guidelines. I'm thinking to remove the Bioneutra page as it does not fullfill the rules set by Wikipedia. Since I'm very new to WP, could you please help me to explain how could I remove that page? Thanks. --HassanQ (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

  • You can either blank the page, or add {{db-g7}} to the top of the article. That said, are you sure you want to do that? The article indicates importance and/or significance in the statement, "BioNeutra is the first company to received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada approval for the manufacturing of IMO in North America." If you can locate reliable and independent sources to support that claim, there would really be no reason to delete it. Another option would be to "userfy" the article, which simply means that we can move it to a subpage of your account where you can work on it until it better meets the Wikipedia guidelines. If you want help with this, just let me know. As the article creator, you may certainly add the G7 or blank the page though. If you choose to do this, just make sure to add an edit summary that you are the article creator (renamed from User:Bioneutra) and requesting deletion. Otherwise, someone may get confused that you are requesting deletion as the article creator, when the User:Bioneutra account is recorded as the creator. Does this make sense? Let me know if you have questions. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 01:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

John Hills (academic)

One of the UK's most notable academics in economics/social policy. Trying to bring up to scratch - all advice (including the messages above the piece) welcome. Bikerprof (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

  • You've done a great job improving the article! Overall, we need to establish notability for the subject. The topical notability guidelines are here, while the general notability guidelines are here. There's no concern with possible speedy deletion of the article, we just need to continue improving it by providing significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I've removed a couple of the maintenance in response to the work you have done. It just needs independent sources. Could you add anything about his personal background, i.e., family, early life, education? There are also further guidelines for biographies here. Just ideas for improvement. Let me know if you have questions. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 02:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for advice. Made some further enhancements with more secondary sources. Will think about other UK social scientists who ought to be on here. Bikerprof (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk page stalking?

The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence
You really went above and beyond what is expected by another wikipedia user in your ivestigation of that user. Thanks for that! Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 18:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal without particular explanation

Cindy, it is very difficult for me to take Wikipedia rules exceptionally into account, tediously attempting to form edits that adhere to epitome rules, and be directed to basic help files that I'm intimately aware of. Admins do this again and again; they remove things without any explanation except direction to policy files I'm already aware of. It is absolutely acceptable if you believe I did not do a good job interpretting policies, but it's extremely rude to revert my labor in 3 seconds without a word of explanation why you think I did not do a good job adhering to rules. Reading blurb paragraphs 700 times isn't going to do anything, because outlining of particular situations aren't there. If they were whole novels of guidelines, it might be different. But they're not. Every other sentence in the guidelines say generally. They don't cover specific situations. Sock puppetry, for instance, gives a thorough list of scenarios of exceptions to the rules. That particular guide is pretty thorough.

I wrote a long paragraph particular explaining that I took policy into account very carefully, and you knew I was attempt to do that, from our conversation, which you left abandoned. It's a slap in the face to my work not give explanation for your behavior. Since it wasn't clear, I will give you a justification of why I thought what I wrote adhered to policy, but you should have known I had such an explanation.

Wikipedia can list the publications of any expert in a field. It can say "X person has published Y work". They also list people's teaching styles. I didn't put a word in about the specific lessons; not a word. I simply described his teaching method, then referenced the works as if they were notable works, which I believe they are. If you disagree, it's your call, but you knew I was doing my best to carefully adhere to policy. My latest revision took all your input to date into account, so the only thing removing something without a word of particular explanation is going to do is frustrate me.

I assume it isn't intentional on your part, but you have to know my feeling is that I'm being stepped on. If you feel that I'm not listening to you or the guidelines (which had to be the case if you reverted my edits without a polite explanation), while I say I am, I suggest we work on our communication. But fyi, if I'm directed one more to a basic help file that I could have written myself from scratch pracitcally verbatim, I'm going to go insane. How can you not think that doing that 50 times from square one isn't going to continuously upset me? Again, I think you're a considerate person, but I can't understand how that's fathomable. How you could possibly think that such actions wouldn't infuriate me? I just don't get it. Please help. Squish7 (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Geeky Fortune
Thanks for wikilinking geek in the Golden Gate Fortune Cookie Company article. A wikilink that made me smile, that's for sure. Here is a geeky fortune cookie for you! SarahStierch (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I just ran into

a Speedy deletion nomination of Josephine P. Widener that included the language along the lines of "click here to discuss this issue" but there was not link and the article seemed to be gone. Any thoughts? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Ah ha. What was all red links just turned into blue ones. Now to get an opinion on the subject. Carptrash (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
    • LOL it was deleted by another editor, followed by the article creator immediately reinstating it. Someone doesn't want their article deleted. Oy vey. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Life is tough. I just added several things to that article and now it is gone. Again. I would like it back, but now ther is no "history" to go by. I'd never heard of FiFi until 10 minutes ago, but I am already captivated. Any ideas as to what I can do to be reunited with her? Carptrash (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Well, there was absolutely nothing in the article indicate possible significance, importance, or notability. One source was her obituary and the other was Find-A-Grave. For more information about notability, see WP:Notability (people) and the general notability guidelines. It is vital to support articles through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article merely stated accomplishments and/or implied significance of family members. Unfortunately, notability is not inherited. If you have questions, feel free to contact me. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 21:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
          • Well, her horse won the Belmont Stakes and a huge number of the owners are articled. I figure that if someone shows up in another article they need a serious look at. Not a speedy deletion with 20 minutes warning. Carptrash (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
            • At this point, if you choose to write an article about this subject again, please create it in a subpage of your userspace. Present credible claims of significance and/or importance and make sure to support your claims through reliable, secondary sources. Previous versions of the article failed to meet the criteria for inclusion. Please note that any article can be deleted through the "speedy deletion" process, when it fails to indicate importance or significance. Two minutes or 20 minutes. Create and draft first and you shouldn't have problem. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 21:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
              • There is no "again." This was never my article - I just ran across the Speedy Delete version of it, put in one toe to test the waters and . . . ... the waters seemed to be filled with sharks. Might be enough for me. Carptrash (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
                • Sorry. I knew you didn't create the earlier versions. I just meant "again" in that a third creation would equate to being "written again". No harm; no foul if you want to do this. I just wanted to offer a safer choice if you choose to go that route. No sharks here, just editors like yourself that are working together to make sure articles meet the established community guidelines for inclusion. If you have questions, feel free to ask anytime. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 22:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It's okay. Some of my best friends are sharks. And I did not get any bad vibes (older folks term for sharkey behavior) from you. It just all seemed to happen so fast. Carptrash (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you re: Arlington P. Van Dyke

Thank you for your help Cindy. I am not sure how to cite the following info. that gives more specifics for the "Mountain Eagle" newspaper and the NYS Automobile Dealers Association Inc. newsletter "The News": The Mountain Eagle is located at 122 Main Street, Stamford, NY 12167-1122, phone (607) 652-5252. NYS Auto Dealers Association, Inc. is located at 37 Elk Street, PO Box 7347, Albany, NY 12207, phone (518) 463-1148. Kpvandy 01:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpvandy (talk • contribs)

Startling by Each Step

Dear Cindamuse

I sees that you are a member of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. The reason I'm writing is because I need helpo of cleaning up the article of the Chinese TV serial Startling by Each Step. I've been doing proofreading and clean-up from contributions made by other users, but I am not confidant of my ability and hope you can help. PLEASE?! Thank you and have a Happy New Year. --NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Hi Cindamuse,

Hope that so day somewhere on earth we shall meet in the same friendly manner in which we have interacted online for en:wp. I am very pleased with your friendly and welcoming attitude. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC).

deletion of HSM Entertainment

Good Evening and Merry Christmas I worked really hard to ensure the accuracy of the page that I just created for HSM Entertainment and am humbly requesting that you please reconsider deleting the page? If there is anything that I can do please tell me. Thank you so much for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SueDagostino (talk • contribs) 03:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi Sue! I've placed a selection of links on your page that will give you some guidance beyond what I am able to offer on my talk page. Overall, I recommend reading and becoming familiar with the guidelines for reliable sources and how to cite your sources appropriately. Overall, we need to establish notability for the organization through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the company. Keep in mind that we cannot use self-published sources from your company to establish notability. This includes press releases, annual reports, internal memos, and websites (not all-inclusive). Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is not a means or platform to promote awareness of anything or anyone. The purpose is to compile information and present written articles about entities that have already been noted by others. In addition to supporting content with reliable and independent sources, it is essential that the article present how or why the company and/or website is significant and/or important. What sets the company/website apart from other companies or websites within the same industry? Has the company received any national honors or awards? How has the company been recognized by others? Where has the company received significant coverage in newspapers, magazines, books, journals, and the like? Are the claims of significance and/or importance, along with notability verifiable? If so, this information is vital to the existence of the article. If you need additional help, please feel free to contact me. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 08:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

More Beautiful You

I just want to thank you for all the work you did to improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HotHat (talk • contribs) 05:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

  • No problem, happy to help! You're doing great work. As a side note, please start providing edit summaries for your work. This helps others understand the intention of your edit, saving quite a bit of time. Additionally, it is important to use the preview option before saving your work. This helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. If you have questions or need assistance navigating the policies and guidelines, please feel free to contact me. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 13:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Titanic (2012 mini-series)/Temp

HiCindamuse. I notice you tagged the Titanic (2012 mini-series)/Temp article for speedy deletion. This page was created because of a copyvio at Titanic (2012 mini-series) and was the correct procedure for such an event. Please consider restoring the page. Regards Cloudz679 07:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Not sure where you've gained your information, but copyright violations are not permitted on any page in Wikipedia. Additionally, the subpage feature for mainspace articles is not enabled. The Titanic (2012 mini-series)/Temp article, rather than creating a subpage, merely created another article repeating the copyright violation, albeit with a slash in the name. Fortunately, in any case, the issue has been resolved with a proper move by Fastily. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 08:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

Deletion of TicketPros

I understand the guidelines, but see many articles such as Ticketpro that violate them as well. Why is that page allowed? Could you userfy the TicketPros page for me please? It is the 2nd largest ticket agent in SA and will sell approximately 50% of all sport event tickets in SA next year! I would like to move it back once it has reliable sources as such a market share is surely notable. Mvnrsa (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

  • With all due respect, clearly, you do not understand the guidelines. The article failed to provide any indication of importance and/or significance. It additionally failed to provide significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources to support notability. See WP:ORG and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as well as User:Alexf, who deleted your article. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 19:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    • With respect your tone does not encourage people to contribute!! There is a difference between understanding guidelines and abiding by them! All artcles have to start somewhere and with attitudes like yours notmany would get started. Franky you are a liability to a great community instead of an asset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvnrsa (talk • contribs) 19:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
      • My comment certainly wasn't meant to offend. That said, I'm concerned by your statement. In essence, you are implying that while you understood the guidelines, you chose to ignore them. Have I misunderstood? Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
        • If you don't mean to offend new contributors, you should check your tone. That said I mean that I understand the guideline, but I see many articles that ignore them! So who and where do you draw the line? Refer WP:IAR Every article has to start somewhere. If every bad contribution is just deleted, nothing notable would be added until days have been spent on it. Or should I go on a crusade to delete evey page about a ticket agent from WP? Mvnrsa (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
          • With all due respect, your statement implies that you understand the guidelines, but since others choose to ignore them, you felt it was acceptable for you to follow suit. This is honestly a bit disruptive. Where do we draw the line? At all inappropriate articles as they are made known. Unfortunately, some articles fall through the cracks. Not sure to what you are referring when you mention a "ticket agent". That said, you do not have the tools to delete articles, so there is really no concern in that regard. As presented on your talk page earlier, I've recommended that you draft your article first in a subpage of your userspace. Once completed, you can submit it to the Articles for Creation team for review. When new editors arrive on Wikipedia, this is where every article should generally start. No harm; no foul. I'm truly sorry that you have had an abrupt time here on Wikipedia. In all regards, if you truly have questions or need help navigating the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, please feel free to contact me. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
((edit conflict) Ignore All Rules isn't what it appears. Your comments about Cindy's tone have been noted - as they tell me more about you than about her. Cindy is one of the most respected editors on Wikipedia, and one of the most polite. (Probably the reason she's not an admin...) I agree with her that the article did not meet our requirements, and would suggest reading WP:RS about reliable independent sources. Now it's been userfied, I would recommend finding the suitable references soon. Peridon (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Cindy,I apologise if I misread your tone, but starting any reply with "with all due respect" will tend to do that. Frankly I do not know how to read you - you offer help, but at the same time you actually insult the author. Anyway it is 22:40 over here and I will stop contributing to WP in all ways - content, comment and financially. We need helpers not sharks to keep this free and valuable!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cindamuse/Archive_20&oldid=1148816173"