Jump to content

User talk:Cindamuse/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Barnstar

[edit]
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
This Tireless Contributor barnstar is awarded to Cindamuse for copy editing articles totalling 23,851 words during the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 backlog drive. Your contributions are appreciated!--Diannaa (Talk) 15:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive Wrap-up

[edit]
Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks to all who participated in the drive! Over 100 editors—including Jimbo Wales—signed up this time (nearly triple the participants of the May drive). This benefited the Guild as well as the articles in need of copy editing. You can see from the comparison graphs that we increased the number of completed copyedits substantially. Unfortunately, we were not able to meet our goal of completely wiping out 2008 from the queue. We also were not able to reduce the backlog to less than 6,000 articles. We suspect people were busy with real life summertime things, at least in the northern hemisphere! We were able to remove the months of January, February, March, April, and May from the backlog, and we almost wiped out the month of June. We reduced the backlog by 1,289 articles (17%), so all in all it was a very successful drive, and we will be holding another event soon. We'll come up with some new ideas to try to keep things fresh and interesting. Keep up the good work, everybody!


Stats
If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you edited in the May 2010 GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive, your word totals are cumulative for barnstars (not the leaderboard). Over the course of the next week or two, we will be handing out the barnstars.

GOCE backlog elimination drive chart up to 31 July
  • Eight people will receive The Most Excellent Order of the Caretaker's Barnstar (100,000+ words): Chaosdruid, Diannaa, Ericleb01, Lfstevens, Shimeru, S Masters, The Utahraptor, and Torchiest.
  • Bullock and Slon02 will receive The Order of the Superior Scribe (80,000+).
  • The Barnstar of Diligence (60,000+) goes to Derild4921, GaryColemanFan, kojozone, and Mlpearc.
  • The Modern Guild of Copy Editors Barnstar (40,000+) goes to A. Parrot, AirplanePro, Auntieruth55, Bejinhan, David Rush, and mono.
  • Nobody will receive The Old School League of Copy Editors award (30,000+).
  • The Tireless Contributor Barnstar (20,000+) goes to Backtable, Cindamuse, dtgriffith, Duff, e. ripley, Laurinavicius, NerdyScienceDude, and TEK.
  • The Cleanup Barnstar (12,000+) goes to Brickie, Casliber, cymru lass, December21st2012Freak, Nolelover, TheTito, Whoosit, and YellowMonkey.
  • The Working Man's Barnstar (8,000+) goes to Bsherr, Duchess of Bathwick, HELLKNOWZ, Mabeenot, noraft, Pyfan, and Richard asr.
  • The Modest Barnstar (4,000+) goes to Adrian J. Hunter, Airplaneman, Annalise, Camerafiend, Cricket02, Fetchcomms, Gosox5555, LeonidasSpartan, Paulmnguyen, Piotrus, SuperHamster, Taelus, and TPW.


Gold Star Award

Gold Star Award Leaderboard
Articles Words 5k+ Articles
1. Diannaa (248) Shimeru (200,392) Shimeru/Ericleb01 (13)
2. Slon02 (157) Diannaa (164,960) Chaosdruid (8)
3. GaryColemanFan (101) Chaosdruid (130,630) Derild4921 (7)
4. Torchiest (100) The Utahraptor (117,347) GaryColemanFan/Slon02 (6)
5. Shimeru (80) Ericleb01 (114,893) Bejinhan/The Utahraptor (5)

Coordinator: ɳorɑfʈ Talk! Co-coordinators: Diannaa TALK and S Masters (talk) | Newsletter by: The Raptor You rang?/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 18:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

[edit]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Cindamuse. You have new messages at GorillaWarfare's talk page.
Message added 13:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Hello, Cindamuse. You have new messages at Carrite's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Valeri Lilov

[edit]

Hey Cindamuse, Thank you for reformatting my article. Unfortunately, the thing is that it has been deleted twice due to earlier versions of it, which were not initially approved. Do you think there is a way for it to be uploaded any time in the future in its present form and contents, given your knowledge of Wikipedia policies and rules. Here is what it appears, if I try to create the article as a published Wikipedia page: "The page title you have tried to create has been protected from creation. The reason given is: Repeatedly recreated. You may also wish to check the deletion log." Thanks for your advice! (Chesszorro (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thank yuo for your message! Yes, of course. I willl be glad if you cold review my article and add the necessary correction, so that it qualifies to be published on Wikipedia. (Chesszorro (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

If I Didn't Love You

[edit]

There's nothing to merge really; the Squeeze article already contains all the info in this microstub. Also, you can't merge and delete. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annette Groves

[edit]

Thank you so very much for your kind and thoughtful comments on my user talk page -- they've made my week!
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS I'm sorry to have been slow in replying -- I've been offline most of the time.

Responded to your message (at my talk page)

[edit]
Hello, Cindamuse. You have new messages at Houseofisaac's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kourosh Zolani

[edit]

[1], why? There is no rule that says a source has to be in English, foreign language references are perfectly acceptable, and unless you have a copy of the newspaper articles in question, how do you expect anybody at WP:PNT to be able to translate them?--Jac16888Talk 13:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is undergoing a discussion regarding a proposed deletion. The issues of concern involve notability and verifiability of the artist. Notability is established through secondary and third-party sources. Without these sources, the article additionally fails verifiability, both criteria to support deletion of the article.
I've gone through and made inline notations within the article. These are the items and issues that need to be cleared up regarding the notability of this article. At this point, the article fails notability, because the claims made in the article cannot be verified.
While it is true that foreign sources may be used, translations must be provided. WP:NONENG states that translations must be available on request in order to verify information presented in the article. These translations may be placed as footnotes in the article or added to the talk page if the translation is very long. Either way, without these translations, this article fails notability and verifiability. There are a few days left to bring this article into compliance with WP policy that would support inclusion. If this is not done, the article will most likely be deleted. Cindamuse (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your edits on this article, and for the AfD discussion associated with it. Your contributions are much appreciated. Beeshoney (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Shaftesbury

[edit]

Hi! Thank you for explanation. Why do I want to write an article about her? She is a British countess who had her hubby murdered. She seems notable. Do you disagree? Surtsicna (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, I totally agree with you. I look forward to reading the article about her. I was just curious, because I couldn't really find much information about her, outside of court transcripts, and the information was often conflicting. I've wondered what she was really like. The whole psychology and what makes a person do certain things. I knew Atty, but had never met her. During their marriage, he never referred to her as Countess, but held that title for the mother of his children. In spite of my negative feelings toward her, I don't honestly believe that the murder was premeditated. Of course, that's only my opinion. ;) Have fun writing the article. Cindamuse (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for bothering you but I was wondering why you described this edit of mine as vandalism? Jamila wasn't daughter of a British duke/marquess/earl, was she? Surtsicna (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, referring to someone by their first name (a breach of WP:MoS) is going to hurt the GA review more than two red links (which are soon going to be blue anyway; see how many red links this featured article had). Why not use "Jamila M'Barek" instead of "Jamila"? I know it would be repetitive but it's at least allowed. Legally, she was Countess of Shaftesbury and, legally, she still is. The title is not a property you can will to someone or cede to someone in a divorce settlement. After her divorce, Christina retained the title as a courtesy title and became "Christina, Countess of Shaftesbury". The moment she married the Earl, Jamila became "The Right Honourable the Countess of Shaftesbury". She still has the right to use that title. Therefore, it's hardly inappropriate to refer to her as Countess of Shaftesbury. Surtsicna (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Nathaniel Henry Peters

[edit]

Any hope of you using the material you have cited to convert this inot a substantive article before the AFD period ends? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamila

[edit]

Hi! You can see the article-to-be about Jamila at User:Surtsicna/Grand Dukes of Luxembourg family tree. There is a tertiary source that claims Jamila's married name was Ashley-Cooper;[2] I suppose it's right. Nevertheless, I think the article itself should be titled Jamila M'Barek, because that's the most common name. Anyway, most of the information about the trial you added to the article about her husband is relevant to the article about her, so I copy-pasted it. I would like to rephrase it a bit, so that it's not the same as in the article about the 10th Earl. Unfortunatly, English is not my first language and I lack vocabulary; could you please try rephrasing it, when you find time?

I've also noticed that some of the information in the article about the 10th Earl is directly related to the Countess only (such as the name of her attorney, her alleged relationships with the actors and other celebrities, etc). Should we remove that information from the article about the 10th Earl, since it will be included in a more relevant article? Surtsicna (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would like to "publish" the article only when it's "finished", so that I can nominate it for DYK. Wouldn't it be interesting to see a fact related to the trial at the main page? :) Surtsicna (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's great that you're interested in writing an article about M'Barek, if you can expand upon the information already provided. At this point, though, she is not notable outside of her conviction for the murder of the 10th Earl of Shaftesbury. Therefore, the article is likely to be quickly deleted.
While I appreciate that you find the information that I wrote as interesting, it's really not appropriate to copy|paste from one article to another. While you can certainly review the sources that I've provided to inspire a separate article, you can't duplicate another person's work and claim it as your own. You have done this both with this anticipated article on Jamila as well as the new article you created on St Giles House using my work. I find this offensive. The suggestion made on the article's talk page was to merge the information on St Giles House into the Earl of Shaftesbury article... not to delete it and recreate another article as if you wrote the content. I find that to be very deceptive.
There is no question that Jamila's married name was Ashley-Cooper during her marriage. However, use of the title of Countess of Shaftesbury (as well as Right Honourable) is contested. While the 10th Earl and his wife were entitled to use the prefix of Right Honourable, the use was deferred on both a personal and professional level. The second wife of the 10th Earl of Shaftesbury retained the title of Countess of Shaftesbury upon their divorce. Jamila was styled as Lady Shaftesbury. The only time she asserted use of the title Countess was as part of a ploy in the defence of the murder of her husband. Upon her husband's murder (not to mention her conviction for his murder), she lost all rights to the title and Shaftesbury estate.
I want to caution you on a few things. While I think that an effort to research the life of Jamila in order to expand, detail, and improve the presentation of her life would be welcome, simply duplicating information that is already available on Wikipedia will end up in deletion. At this point, she is known for only one event. You may want to review that criteria which may lead to the deletion of this article. A likely outcome of an article on Jamila would result in a redirect. Applicable reasons for deletion include WP:BIO1E and A10 speedy delete.
The article qualifies as a A10 speedy delete, meaning that an administrator could view the article and immediately delete it without discussion. The A10 applicable information addresses a recently created article that duplicates an existing topic. A recently created article with no relevant page history that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect. Cindamuse (talk) 07:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not be offended, but, having read this last comment, I am under the impression that you know very little about Wikipedia and about peerage. First of all, she is notable because of "her conviction for the murder of the 10th Earl of Shaftesbury" and thus deserves an article. Wikipedia has thousands of articles about people known only for their crime(s). She is a British peeress who had her husband murdered = She is notable.
"You can't duplicate another person's work and claim it as your own. You have done this both with this anticipated article on Jamila as well as the new article you created on St Giles House using my work. I find this offensive." You do not own articles (nor templates and other features of Wikipedia). If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and within reason you should not prevent them from doing so. I am sorry that you are offended, but you should've read the text below the "Save page" button before saving the page. It says: "If you do not want your writing to be edited and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."
"The second wife of the 10th Earl of Shaftesbury retained the title of Countess of Shaftesbury upon their divorce. Jamila was styled as Lady Shaftesbury." As I have already explained, whenever a peer gets divorced, his ex-wife retains her former title as a courtesy title. Jamila was styled Lady Shaftesbury because she was Countess of Shaftesbury. Every lawfully wedded wife of a British earl is a countess. No exceptions. "She lost all rights to the title..." Source please? Do you have a source that says convicted people lose their titles? Anyway, the article about Jamila should contain information relevant to her, while the article about her husband should not contain information that is not relevant to him or his murder.
I've been here long enough to know that an article with over 30 sources cannot be deleted "without discussion". I will create the article and then you are free to nominate it for deletion; I know that it would not be deleted. Thank you for you time. Surtsicna (talk) 10:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, you are mistaken. See WP:COPYWITHIN. Your use of the St Giles House information is a violation of guideline/policy devoid of attribution. The applicable warning, (which I have chosen to bypass) is {{uw-copying}}. I copied the warning below for your viewing pleasure. Continued violations could lead to a block. I have never claimed ownership, but require proper attribution accordingly. I don't question Jamila's notability, but according to WP:BIO1E, there may be questions. Just a heads up. I have no intention of nominating the article that you write for deletion. However, I have reverted your deletion of the St Giles House information. At a later date, I may merge the information with the Earls of Shaftesbury article, as I earlier suggested. On a personal note, I am a professional historian with close family ties to the Ashley-Cooper family. I am an Ashley by birth and named after the Countess Mountbatten of Burma. Much of my knowledge is original research gained through conversations with the 10th Earl, Nick, the family archivist, and the manager of the Shaftesbury estates. However, I work to leave OR out of the articles that I write. My expertise on the peerage has been consulted on numerous occasions for over 25 years. And as far as Wikipedia, I'm learning more and more everyday and appreciate assistance and recommendations from whomever they arrive. I'm not the enemy. I would much rather work with you than against you. Cindamuse (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently copied or moved text from Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 10th Earl of Shaftesbury into St Giles House. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you.

Thank you for explanation. As for your expertise on the peerage, I may have been misled by blatantly incorrect forms of address I had seen in the article about the 10th Earl of Shaftesbury[3] and your assertion that the Earl's third wife was not a countess. Anyway, I have now pointed out that you were the one who gathered the information about St Giles House and the trial of Lady Shaftesbury. I have nominated Jamila M'Barek article for DYK. You can see the nomination here. Surtsicna (talk) 11:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the attribution. As for Jamila's article, why not add her photo that I uploaded from her trial? Just add another rationale and it should be fine. I sincerely think that the misunderstanding is one of title and style. For example, it may have been appropriate for Atty to use Right Honourable, but he chose to defer. And while Jamila may have legally been titled as Countess, she was styled as Lady at Atty's insistence. She only used Countess when he wasn't around and she thought she could profit from the use. I know nothing about DYKs, so I'll have to check that out. Again, thanks for the attribution. Cindamuse (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about adding a photograph of her but the DYK rules say that fair use images should be avoided; I am not sure if that rule covers only the hook image or all images in the article. Besides, I am not sure how to write another rationale :( I believe it would be best to try to include the photograph of her after the hook appears on the main page or if it is rejected. Surtsicna (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naveen Jain -- spillover dispute

[edit]

I saw you'd been working on the Naveen Jain article. I trust your instincts and I thought you would be interested:

Something seems a little fishy about it, but I don't know all the background on the Jain article disputes.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I came upon the article during the GOCE elimination drive. I did some copy editing and basically worked on the article to eliminate POV. There was much discussion on the talk page between invested editors that amounted to a bunch of schoolyard bullies. The primary issue involves edit wars between negative and positive aspects of the life of Jain. There's a lot of whitewashing and censoring going on.
It's a highly controversial issue that involves covert editing by the subject of the article, who has often reverted negative information from the article without discussion or consensus. In my opinion, I believe that the ValkyrieOfOdin editor is a sock or the recent reincarnation of the subject of the article, Naveen Jain.
I attempted to offer some guidance to the editors involved in the article to no avail. I know nothing about Jain or the industry in which he works, so I have little to offer beyond editing for grammar and style. I also presented some ideas culled from online sources to enhance the article, to no avail. I finally removed the article from my watch list and shook the dust from my feet.
Really, overall, I'm a rather pleasant person. When it gets to a point where one side isn't listening to another in lieu of several attempts, I just opt to walk away. There are over a million more articles that need assistance, so I just move on. Hopefully the Jain article will work its way out of the back alley bully zone one of these days. Cindamuse (talk) 03:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need some advice

[edit]

Hello Cindamuse,

I know we do not agree on the topic of Kourosh Zolani’s page but I found you a person who wants to make sure that facts are correct which is appreciable, so please help us here with a strange behavior of a user. A user has deleted a majority of our contribution to the discussion and keeps deleting my new comments. I posted the following comment in response to your last question but she removed it twice. So I post it here again. Please advise me can a user remove big part of the discussion from the other side? Thank you, Sozlati (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the comment, I posted

  • Comment. This information was in the article but different pieces have been removed from this article over and over that it hardly makes any sense now. The traditional Iranian Santour is a diatonic instrument. Kourosh Zolani’s invention is creating a “chromatic Santour”, which is for the first time in the history of this ancient instrument. A diatonic instrument is like a piano without the black keys; the chromatic instrument is like having a piano with both black and white keys. Over the history of Persian Santour, many had tried to create a chromatic santour but it remained in experimental phases and never became functional. Some even believed that it is impossible to design a chromatic santour. That is why Zolani’s invention is notable. This is backed up by Farsi articles which translations are available on the talk page. I would like to invite you to watch this music video on YouTube. Here kourosh zolani performs one of his pieces, “Memoires of Sangesar”, with his chromatic santour. This piece is full of chromatic intervals and modulations which is impossible to play it with a traditional santour. Regarding his compositions, there was a list of his works at the very beginning version of this article which someone removed them and called it self-serving. Here is a link to the list of his songs on iTunes.
  • I'm very sorry this happened. No, this should never have happened at all. Highly inappropriate. I would have responded sooner, but had to get some sleep. It is never permissible to change or remove another person's comments. The only thing that is permissible it to reformat the conversation to improve the flow. Were you able to reinsert your comments in the article? Try to do that. I am going to add the information that you provided regarding the details that make the instrument unique. Cindamuse (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made revisions to the article adding the content you provided on this talk page. I am continuing to review it. There continue to be inappropriate sources. All pay-per-view sites including itunes are not acceptable, so I had to remove those. Press releases are primary sources not appropriate, but I left the one in that was released through Eileen Koch. It may be questioned by others though. Embedded links are also not appropriate, so I had to remove those. The consistent thing that comes up in this article are what are called "weasel words" and "peacock terms". Words that cannot be used include "several", "many", "various", "preeminent", and "everywhere". The claim made by Just Plain Folks Music Organization's International Contest that they are the "world's largest" independent music awards also has to be removed, because it cannot be supported with reliable sources. Just because someone makes the claim that they are the "world's largest" doesn't make it so. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia cannot perpetuate these claims without reliable sources. Let me know if you have questions. Cindamuse (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current version of the article is now acceptable for inclusion on WP due to removal of weasel words and the added information pertaining the enhancement of the santur. This information not previously included in the article, now establishes notability. Unfortunately, editor Eraserhead continues to revert the article to include inappropriate weasel terminology. I have done all I can do to assist with this article. Please note how I added the English version of "Thinking out of the box..." You may want to consider adding similar links to the other translations. Thanks for contacting me here and providing additional information to support notability. Best of luck. Cindamuse (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad things worked out with the deleted comments. I've honestly never seen that happen before, but I'm believing that it was made in good faith regardless. I'm just glad that things worked out.
    There are two reasons that the mentioned source is unreliable. One is that it is a blog. The other is that it was used to support a claim by "Just Plain Folks" that they are the "world's largest independent awards show." While JPF makes this claim in their marketing campaign, the statement is not supported through research or comparative studies. I can claim that I'm the most beautiful girl in the world, but saying it doesn't make it true. ;) Wikipedia cannot perpetuate undocumented claims of notability either directly in articles or indirectly used as sources.
    By the way, there is no such thing as "senior editors" on Wikipedia. Some people use boxes on their User page to indicate how long they have been editing on Wikipedia. Some even claim that they are senior editors, but it has no official status. It's just silliness, because Wikipedia has no hierarchy and some people find that frustrating. In reality, it's just vanity. An editor with one week's experience is on the same "status" level as an editor with five years of experience. The only thing that may differentiate is the knowledge accumulated. I know several editors who have edited for years on Wikipedia, but they still have their head in the sand. There's good and bad everywhere you look.
    By the way, when I started editing in 2005, I created an article for one of my clients. I had a major conflict of interest and got my hand slapped several times. It was very frustrating. I hope that this AfD hasn't discouraged you to no end. Just keep reviewing all the material you can find on compliance with the WP policies, guidelines, formatting, and style and you'll be fine. I'm not perfect. I make mistakes. And I don't know any other editor on WP that's any different. Hope you have a great day. Cindamuse (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you so much for your explanation. Many times in AfD discussion, it was mentioned that we are new in WP and an editor kept tagging my comments with “has made few or no other edits outside this topic” that I thought there is some kind of hierarchy in WP.
    I must admit this AfD discussion was frustrating and sometimes painful for me as a newcomer. However, this discussion along with the advice that I received from more experienced editors turned to a crash course on WP for me.
    I am not sure if I continue with introducing notable Iranian-Americans project anymore, although I thought this is an interesting topic to increase knowledge about notable people from different cultures. I guess if I continue to edit, I should explore broader domains. Thank you again for your help and advice. I hope you have a great day as well. Sozlati (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you comments were tagged with single purpose account was probably down to the fact that you've only edited a single article so far. However I not convinced that in this case the tags were particularly useful or appropriate.

If you go onto edit further articles on other people you will be showing you aren't a single purpose account - even if the articles are of people Iranian descent - lots of editors edit in relatively narrow fields. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right! It worth editing articles that offer valuable information but are not in a good shape.
I heard that video gaming can be addictive but I did not know this may be true for editing WP too.  :) I will come back in a few days and continue my edits with less controversial articles. Sozlati (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel Basso

[edit]

I noted that at the AFD you made a comment and some excellent observations toward the article needing improvement. Might I ask that you now look in again at Gabriel Basso and advise on further improvements from which you think it might benefit? Thnks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

[edit]

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive invitation

[edit]
There are currently
2,505 articles in the backlog.
You can help us! Join the
September 2010 drive today!

The Guild of Copy-Editors – September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive

The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invite you to participate in the September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 September at 23:59 (UTC). The goals for this drive are to eliminate 2008 from the queue and to reduce the backlog to fewer than 5,000 articles.

Sign-up has already begun at the September drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page.

Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style.

Awards and barnstars
A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GoCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.

Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive!
— ɳorɑfʈ Talk! and S Masters (talk).

Jay Berman

[edit]

Hi -- I'm trying to figure out how to make this page stick. Any heop you could give would be great

Riztherat (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Question

[edit]

Hello Cindamuse,

  • I apologize to bother you again. Beeshoney, the same user who caused problem in Kourosh Zolani’s AfD discussion by deleting big part of the comments has nominated many Iranian musicians articles for speedy deletion today. Here are links to two pages of names (page 1) and (page 2). She is proposing to almost delete all the history of Iranian classical music from WP. Many of these articles are not biographies of living people. They are master musicians with prominent roles in the history of Iranian classical music since centuries ago. Is there any policy in WP to stop this user’s strange behavior? Thank you, Sozlati (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment this is being discussed on WP:ANI -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, thank you. I am following the discussion on WP: ANI closely. I must say I cannot understand this user’s intentions. Sozlati (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Puzzling. I'm sorry that this is happening. I understand that it must be very frustrating and disheartening for you. I don't know Beeshoney, so I can't speak to the motive or intention. In all things, I try to assume good faith WP:AGF, which is a standard etiquette guideline on Wikipedia. I will try to take a look at some of the questionable articles today and do a quick cleanup, if possible, if that is okay with you. And please know that you are not bothering me when you have a question or need help. Cindamuse (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you for your note and offering to help. I was hoping for a quieter WP day today! I must admit I have been upset all day because of this incident. I do not mean to make a political statement here, but unfortunately the current events in Iran have made most Iranians outside the country concerned and sensitive to everything Iran related. Sozlati (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment. Please know that politics don't enter the subject for me. I appreciate and respect each individual person regardless of their ethnic or religious background or whatever. (Unless of course, they don't like me or offer the same in return. I'm not crazy or anything. LOL) About the articles, I've looked through them and the primary concern is a lack of references. Biographies of living persons are required to have at least one reliable reference, but I don't have the language capabilities to search Iranian sources. Just try to focus on adding references and that should help. Remember to not use blogs, forums, or primary sources. (Only the year of birth is required, so don't worry about that.) Cindamuse (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I was upset because this user had tagged only Iranians articles for deleting. I know many of these articles can improve a lot. I will gradually work on some of them when things cool down. Thanks again, Sozlati (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help

[edit]
  • Since you seemed to be the most interested in offering helpful advice on my article Dr._Lisa_Christiansen, I thought I would ask for one more piece of advice. I am weary of the drama surrounding this piece. I was trying to make it better/more appropriate and really did believe she was notable based on the section on biographies of academics that states some academics may not be covered by outside sources. However, it is clear now there is a lot I need to learn about Wikipedia. As such, how do I request the article go ahead and be deleted? I am going to just try my hand at small edits on existing pieces first, to get a better feel for everything, before creating any additional articles of my own. As such, I am "over" this particular article and the discussion. It is obvious I was wrong, I just find it hard not to respond when my personal character is being attacked. Therefore, I was wondering if there was a way I can ask for the deletion of this article now' so I can continue to learn Wikipedia without getting into debate with additional users? Thank you. Sara-rockworth (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think you should just give up yet. An uninvolved editor will make the decision after the 24th and either keep the article or delete it. It is not standard for an editor to delete it early. I'm curious though, what is the academic background of Christiansen? Are you able to find and add reliable secondary or third-party sources to the article? I would be happy to go through the article and edit some markups to indicate where references are needed. I'm a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, I hesitate to step on toes, but I would be happy to edit the article for you. I didn't have time yesterday, but have time now. Cindamuse (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply That would be wonderful. Thank you. I have been diligently searching for third-party references and all I can find are things put out by her, her publishers, or people who have interviewed her, etc. I did some advanced research in Wikipedia and did find where biographies of living persons in academia (which is really what I feel "coaching" falls under) are really hard to source. That is why I was kind of giving up. I should have really stuck to editing existing pieces for a while before I tried to write anything of my own but I have learned A LOT in the last two days. But I will continue and would love for you to look at it as it currently exists if you have time. That will give me a good idea of what "corners" of the Internet to keep searching in...Sara-rockworth (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Academics need specific information regarding their education. Also, interviews are appropriate to add as references. Look for her entry in Who's Who and information on her college education. I would start there. Cindamuse (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sara-rockworth has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks from the GOCE

[edit]
Thank you very much for signing up for the Guild of Copy Editors' September Backlog Elimination Drive! The copyedit backlog stretches back two years, to the summer of 2008! We're going to need all the help we can muster to reduce the backlog to a manageable size. We've set a goal of clearing all of 2008 from the backlog, and getting the total under 5000. To do that, we're going to need more participants. Please invite anyone you can to join the drive! Once again, thanks for your support! If you have any questions, contact one of our coordinators—ɳorɑfʈ Talk!, The Raptor You rang?, or SMasters (Talk).

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Diannaa at 21:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I know the author of the "Dr. Lisa Christiansen" article, her real relationship to Christiansen, and the origin of some of the false claims - particularly the "Journey" claims. I hope to keep this confidential, and hope we can speak soon... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-cites (talk • contribs) 19:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

[edit]

Socrates

[edit]

Do you mean to refute the idea that Socrates was one of the most most bodacious philosophizers who lived? If so, why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.39.236 (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The Special Barnstar
Thank you Cindamuse for your selfless, generous, assistance, and donation of your time and energy given to a new editor who made a lot of mistakes. You are an asset to Wikipedia. Sara-rockworth (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion request declined

[edit]

Hi Cindamuse, I declined your speedy deletion request of Martin C. Wittig, as the article made a clear, credible assertion of notability: that he is the CEO of a notable company. Please use the PROD or AFD processes instead. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jamila M'Barek

[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion on Angelzoom

[edit]

I have already stated this on the Discussion page for the Angelzoom wiki, please read it and respond. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KenshinXSlayer (talk • contribs) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined

[edit]

On 2010 Damghan earthquake; as an earthquake is in no way a "about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content " that is required for an A7 deletion. Courcelles 08:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • With all sincerity to learn the process, what would be the appropriate speedy deletion criteria? My understanding according to consensus is that earthquakes are not considered notable under a 7.0 Richter or significant loss of life and damage. As such, I flagged the article. I felt the A7 was the closest criteria as web content. I didn't see criteria for events. Additionally, I understand that editors are encouraged to write about breaking news events in Wikinews instead of in Wikipedia. I use instances like this to learn. Your assistance is appreciated. Thanks. Cindamuse (talk) 08:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Bissière

[edit]

Hi, I always cheer when a new article I created is edited by someone else. But in this case I honestly can not find it an improvement. What, e.g. is the benefit of removing the title of a source and cryptically calling it 1? Puzzled. Cheers. Superp (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article was edited in compliance with MOS policy and guidelines. Generally, a bot comes by and addresses the citation formatting. It has been reformatted. Thanks for contacting me. Cindamuse (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

King Jesus Ministry

[edit]

Hello. I think what you have done is perfect. I tried to redirect the page to "El Rey Jesus", but did not know how. A greeting. Jgarpal (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you. Please let me know if you need any copyediting help with the article to address the maintenance tags. While this is the English Wikipedia site, Wikipedia also has a Spanish Wikipedia. If you are able to translate the article to Spanish, we can also add it to the Spanish Wikipedia. Let me know if you are interested. That might be beneficial to local residents or church members that speak little or no English. Just a thought. Cindamuse (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you very much. I appreciate your help. I wrote the article on "El Rey Jesus" in Spanish. I do not know is how to put in the left column, under "Languages", in the Spanish version of the article is in English and the English version the article is in Spanish. If I can help with that thanks again. Regards. Jgarpal (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I have another question. Do you think it is right to remove the section "This article has multiple issues" at the top of the article "El Rey Jesus"? All these issues were before I started working with the article. Thanks again. Jgarpal (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's much easier to show you than to tell you. Therefore, I went ahead and made the link on both articles. Open up the edit window and scroll down to the last edit. Check it out and see if it works for you. Honestly, I don't speak Spanish, so that's my first edit on the Spanish Wikipedia! As far as the edits, unfortunately there are actually still issues that remain. We need secondary and third-party sources. We also need to have all references translated into English. Notability is established through the size of membership, but this needs to be verified through reliable sources, then added to the article prose. I can remove one of the issues pertaining to links, but that's about it. I can give it a quick copyedit to give you start if you want. Cindamuse (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand perfectly what you say about no remove issues. I appreciate your help. Thanks for the links between the Spanish and English Wikipedias about "El Rey Jesus". If you want to remove one of the issues pertaining to links is fine with me, and if you want quick copyedit and to correct what is in the article will also be fine with me, I know my English is terrible. But I like very much the English Wikipedia (honestly, more than Spanish Wikipedia, where the information is much more limited). I have done some minor things, but this work in "El Rey Jesus" is my first job more seriously in an article. Again thank you very much for everything, but especially for your help to a rookie and patiently bear my English very bad. Regards. Jgarpal (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikify Drive

[edit]

Since you signed up for the September 2010 GOCE event, I wanted to invite you to participate in a similar event: the September 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. In case you didn't know, "Wikification" is the process of formatting articles using Wiki markup (as opposed to plain text or HTML) and adding internal links to material. Barnstars will be awarded to participating editors. Thanks!

 ℳono 

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Mono at 00:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Max Romeo Live performances

[edit]

Very kind of you !

I think wp rules are stupid. You are only censors...

Lurulu (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that it must be very frustrating for you to work on an article, only to have it proposed for deletion. You obviously did a lot of work on the article. Maybe another forum may be more appropriate for the articles that you wish to include. I don't think you would find opposition at Open Wiki. The reason for this proposal was due to the inclusion of over 80 videos added from YouTube, which violates policy found at WP:ELNEVER. Honestly, it's nothing personal against you, just compliance with policy in order to develop a consistent and quality encyclopedia. Cindamuse (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Such a policy is stupid ! The current wp is far from being a "consistent and quality encyclopedia" : it's why the internautes try to improve it... in spite of censorship ! Lurulu (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You needn't bother feeling sorry for Lurulu. He/She has a history of creating articles like this and they have been repeatedly deleted, and the problems with them repeatedly explained. Yet he/she chooses to ignore others' advice. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand. And thank you for writing. In situations like this, I just try to diffuse the situation and err on the side of respect and validation. I can only offer what I hope to receive in return. If that doesn't work, I just move forward. No harm; no foul. Again, thanks for writing. Hope you have a great day/evening. Cindamuse (talk) 01:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Ross article

[edit]

Is this better? I made some changes as you indicated. Dave Ross is mayor of a city of 27,000 people and is candidate for a statewide office. As such, I think that he has notoriety enough to warrant a short page on Wikipedia, since articles exist on other wikis. If this is still a problem, please advise about any needed changes. ThanksLinzea (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I went ahead and did a quick copyedit on the article. Unfortunately, mayors of small towns and political candidates are generally not considered notable. This is an opportunity for other editors to weigh in and ensure the article is notable under the applicable policy. Cindamuse (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

[edit]

Great job in El Rey Jesus!

[edit]

I've relocated conversation to the article's talk page. Cindamuse (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cindamuse/Archive_3&oldid=1139098468"