User talk:Cindamuse/Archive 21
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. 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) 07:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
For that deadpan little comment about a certain SEO person... I've not blocked him yet, as the name is easier to spot. Peridon (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm in total agreement with you there! ;) Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 14:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm an instructor of English composition looking for an online ambassador to assist my Writing & Rhetoric II class this coming (Winter quarter). I'm specifically interested in someone who would be willing to respond to short proposals written by students for planned edits/article creations. There's a cap of twenty students in the class, so if I found two willing ambassadors each would be responsible for responding to 10 proposals. Would you be interested? Thanks, Matthewvetter (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hey there! Thanks for contacting me. Unfortunately, I'm not able to commit to anymore classes at this time. Right now, we're structuring the spring session and kinda burning the candle at both ends. Contact Buggie and let him know you're looking for another OA, he may have some ideas. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 14:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cindamuse, Updated the Anton Hammerl article. You had previously tagged it for original research and verification needed, as well as deleted sections. Would you have a look and see if it passes and if you think it is still a stub? No rush. Thank you for watching the article! Crtew (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- I cleaned up quite a bit of the article. I'm concerned that the "Timeline of events" section continues to remain a copyright violation.[1] Honestly, if this cannot be cleaned up completely, the section needs to be deleted in its entirety. An alternate option would be to contact the author [2] to request donation of the materials. This might be the best way to go. In other areas, please review the references provided making sure to use proper citation formatting. I've also removed the Facebook citations. Overall, the article is coming along, but still needs more work to address the copyvio and unsourced statements. The article is most certainly not a stub anymore! ;) Very comprehensive. Note though, that the assessments listed on the talk page are made by the respective WikiProjects. If you have questions, please don't hesitate to contact me anytime. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 14:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Xtnabcn comment
Hello! Thank you for helping me. I am a beginner in Wikipedia and everything seems so difficult for now. I hope to work it out and make a good contribution :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtnabcn (talk • contribs) 22:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hey there! Welcome to Wikipedia! Sorry that I didn't respond earlier. I just noticed your comment here, tucked beneath the box above. An easier way to get another person's attention is to make sure to create a new section when you add new posts on talk pages. Then we can have a bit better control of the conversation. And don't forget to sign your comments, too. Please feel free to keep my name in your back pocket if you ever have a question, or just need help navigating the policies and guidelines of the community. While it may all seem intimidating at first, just make sure to engage in conversation with others and carefully read any information posted on your talk page, along with the links provided. Most people are truly here to help, so don't hesitate to reach out and ask when you have questions. And remember to have fun! Happy editing and Happy New Year! Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear Cindamuse, all the facts I put in that article come from the official website I put at the bottom. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't submit the article for deletion due to a claim of significance as a national racing event. That said, while significance is asserted, the subject lacks notability, which is established through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Accordingly, it is essential that we support all article content through significant reliable, secondary sources. If you have additional questions, please feel free to contact me. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 14:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Steel terminology
Thanks for the notice. That copyvio was completely unintentional. Material had been in List of blade materials for some time, I just split it out. Yworo (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- No problem, I'm sure you would have caught it before long. Happy editing and Happy New Year! Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cindy, I am an instructor of a course on the Canadian women's movement at York University in Toronto. One of the assignments I have given my students for the upcoming term is to draft edits for the "Canadian feminism" Wikipedia page. However, I am not really familiar with Wikipedia etiquette, and I am not really sure how to proceed with putting their edits online once drafted. I am starting to figure things out, but I want to make sure that I am doing things right. Help? Thanks, --Arc1234 (talk) 03:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Overall it is recommended to create and/or work on the additions that you want to make to the article, by establishing a sandbox, i.e., a draft, located in a subpage of your userspace. You can click on this link User:Arc1234/sandbox and work on it there. Generally, working on the article in draft mode, will assist in making sure the content is what you intend, and allows you to test any formatting of prose and citations. It also helps protect it from others that may be inclined to delete the additions if they are unsourced or conflicts with policies and/or guidelines. It is also important to use the "Preview" button before saving content, rather than making multiple short edits and saving each one. Oftentimes, while not recommended, classes will work together on an article. The tendency is to basically write up desired changes, then essentially delete the original version to replace it with the preferred draft. This can sometimes be disruptive, so be careful. A glance at the article's history reveals that there are a number of other editors "watching" or monitoring changes made to the article. To alleviate concern, just make sure to thoroughly source the additions and provide an accurate edit summary that describes the edits made. While a new environment such as Wikipedia can often be intimidating, know that most editors are really just wanting to help. If someone posts a comment on your talk page or that of one of the students, I encourage you to engage in conversation. It makes the process quite a bit more enjoyable and helps to make sure the article is the best it can be. I look forward to reading the additions your group will be making to the article. It clearly needs the help! LOL Please feel free to contact me periodically with any questions or concerns, or just to even throw some ideas at me. I also have some links on my userpage that should provide some extra guidance. I'm more than happy to help with whatever may arise during the semester. Happy editing and Happy New Year! Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 03:51, 31 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 
to High 
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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) 13:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Ryan Doyle article teamwork issues
Cindy, I extraordinarily appreciate the help and praise you've offered me thus far, hence I have given this post extraordinary thought over a good deal of time. It will indefinitely be my last attempt to communicate, as my attempts over the past week have failed, assuming you have had time to respond but have not done so for unsaid reasons. You have invited me to seek help with policies and guidelines from you, but at this point I'm not aware of the method to do so. I would like to give it one last shot and address my behavior and intended behavior. I can only address guesses, since I'm not sure if/how/when my behavior has upset you. Please correct me if I'm reading too much into your lack of responses over the past week. Perhaps you have just been busy.
I have spent many hours since the start of the Ryan Doyle article working on the civility, productiveness, and brevity of my posts, condensing what could be 70 paragraph angry ranting posts down to a fraction of what I have the impulse to say. Yet, I have honesty down to a vice, and simply don't know how to completely avoid stating how I feel as a result of certain actions. I've stated it's probably unintentional on your part, and offered willingness to work on comunication, and have even given you constructive advice on how to interact with people like me, so you and such people can have more productive time here. That may be isomorphic with having a tizzy, but it is still advice on how to productively minimize tizzies.
Perhaps you're not aware of this extreme effort, or perhaps you read more into my tone than is there. Maybe you think I've intentionally avoided your advice, or maybe you think I'm too high-maintenance... In any/all of these cases, we are either severely miscommunicating, or you are seeing an area I have to work on. I'm only human, so if you don't have time to deal with me, at least understand I have put elite effort into solving these issues. I have put this sort of effort in partially because of your praise that I may be a benefit to Wikipedia, not just the Doyle article. This praise has prompted me to dive further into where I might be of help; I've examined multiple other related articles and the issues surrounding their coverage or lack thereof.
My latest revision of civility and brevity seeking your help with policies is on the Doyle discussion page (titled "Teaching Section..."). I have read over the precise policies you've linked to, and have offered a defense of my reasoning via these policies (the spirit of which I've known by heart, and from which the Teaching section was originally written). I believe this a brief, direct, and polite line of inquiry, and if you have qualms with my previous behavior, please consider leaving it behind and starting over with this entry. I am open to that the entire section I wrote does not belong here, but I can't revise it or know where to go after that without some type of particular explanation of why my attempt to adhere to the policies did not succeed.
I will consider a lack of response to this (or that) post, a polite, gentle, tacit withdrawal of your offer to seek policy/guideline aid from you here. Please do note that it may be difficult to adhere to your and WP's wishes with a trial-and-error process, however. I can only infer and induce from removals without particular attention. Even then, however, I will consider removals and referrals to relevant help files professional advice. Just please know I am always doing my best to adhere and revise.
Squish7 (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Overall, I have spent quite a bit of time offering praise, guidance, advice, and links that would hopefully lead to a mutually beneficial relationship between yourself and the community. The advice offered has been consistently met with arguments and statements in an effort to find loopholes to established policies and guidelines. You were told that instructional videos, self-published content, and original research was inappropriate, to which you not only ignored, but created a "teaching section", offering a disclaimer for readers that essentially acknowledged that the section was a violation of community standards, but you felt it was important to add to the article nonetheless. I have also offered links for you to seek additional input regarding your assertions regarding reliable sources and self-published sources, to which you have yet to make inquiry. I am puzzled and spent. Please read TL;DR. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 15:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Why would I have written a section that I thought would be taken down? To see it up for two hours? I would have absolutely no motive. You're making assumptions that attack my character you have conflicting evidence for. If you're puzzled at all, why assume all the worst things? My new section was written to the best of my knowledge with the information on hand. Disagreeing with your interpretation of policy is not the same as being hostile. I'm not looking for loopholes, I'm looking for solid, strict justification of what I think deserves inclusion. I've stated I was familiar with your latest links by heart, which means when I became familiar with the technicalities, I could then support my argument technically. There's a difference between arguging as in "debating", and arguing as in "Life's not fair, I want my way". You use the right word, as I'm probably emiting both, but how could you not sympathize with the difficulty of separating the two in this scenario? Or respect my mission to do so?
- I've even taken personal time to provide constructive advice on how to handle these situations (i.e. incidents with people like me or in my position, including this one). Even if you don't deem it worthy or good advice, the mere fact that I spend time working on communication should warrant the opposite of the silent treatment. If you're spent, which can be common with me, simply say, "I'll take a look at this later" or something. My latest case argument is very civil and straightforward, utlizing all the logical tools you offer me. Understand that I already had my opinions before I became aware of the means to support them. Not opinions of what the policies should support, but what they do support.
- I offer you this: that by removing material you've not thoroughly investigated, you're taking surmises on whether the insertion is the proper one or not. The policies as a whole stress the value of a widespread analysis of all factors and information at hand. If the burden of proof rests on the poster for what they propose, then the burden of verification lies on the person verifying. A massive factor, by policy, that one should consider, is the context of the works referenced, and even if my post did not meet yours or WP's criteria, telling me I should have known ahead what you'd think of it (in light of an abandoned line of inquiry), is unfair of you.
- At to TL:DR, I work viciously to revise my discussion posts down to a few paragraphs. If we're in a scenario were skimming over things of which the details are extremely important creates difficulties, this is called unfortunate, not my fault. I've recognized this difficulty and have even taken time to give advice on how to better your general pattern recognition to recognize instances like this and avoid such problems in the future. That's for your benefit, not mine. Because it's similar to outright bickering, you think that's what it is, because you haven't encountered me before. It's the same as you removing my edit via the logic that 99.9% of cases of people linking to YouTube are violatory of policy.
- If I directly claim that an entry requires careful digestion and examination to be verified, specifically pointing out that it is unlike similar cases and why and that the case must be carefully examined, then the burden of verification lies with the one verifying. If you don't have time to digest the videos and analyze my summary of them, at least allow me to explain my reasoning in terms you can understand. I've taken hours to summarize my reasoning in my latest post, in which I address four main points you seem to have against the section. It's been up since Tuesday, and it's quite short and civil. What do you mean "not make inquiry"?
- Try to understand that adapting the encyclopedia for cases not particularly outlined is infinitely different than simply violating policies or being stuborn. I've spent full-time days on these intricacies far apart from the information gathering itself. Somebody on Earth actually has to write the guidelines. They're not perfect, and they can always use improvement. What I refer to as "spirit" of Wikipedia is the whole point, purpose, and mandate of it. In order to help adapt that spirit for things not strictly covered under particulars, but well-covered under the strict generals, I've spent a lot of time on this case. Squish7 (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- I can't answer the question of why you do the things you do. You may need to spend some time in self-evaluation. Overall, we're not here to debate, argue, or present a case. It's not a court of law. The guidelines and policies of the encyclopedia have been established so that editors will have an idea of how the community functions, along with the encyclopedia's expectations. You are either able to understand and follow the policies and guidelines or you're not. Actions speak louder than words. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 02:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Try to understand that adapting the encyclopedia for cases not particularly outlined is infinitely different than simply violating policies or being stuborn. I've spent full-time days on these intricacies far apart from the information gathering itself. Somebody on Earth actually has to write the guidelines. They're not perfect, and they can always use improvement. What I refer to as "spirit" of Wikipedia is the whole point, purpose, and mandate of it. In order to help adapt that spirit for things not strictly covered under particulars, but well-covered under the strict generals, I've spent a lot of time on this case. Squish7 (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm giving the response that was posted here one final, careful revision, as if we can't agree after this, I'm going to have to start following the instructions for settling disputes. In short, I think my actions have adhered to all the policies and guidelines, and that you have provided completely insufficient proof or justification or your removals or criticisms of my work. I'll defend this more, but that's the nutshell. Squish7 (talk)
- I do not have a dispute with you. You have a dispute with established policies and guidelines. I have offered assistance, along with User:Chzz and User:Peridon. It has been recommended that you review the policies and guidelines found at WP:V, WP:VRS, WP:GNG, and WP:BIO. You have additionally been referred to inquire further at WP:RSN, to no avail. While I generally have the patience of a monk, I really have no desire to hold your hand here any further. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 00:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've spent dozens of hours, full days of work, reading, digesting, analyzing, commenting, and inquiring about, the help files you've linked me to. This idea that I haven't even examined them is so unfathomable that your claim is just plain insulting. It's calling me dishonest, arrogant, and many other things. I've addressed them many times, in many ways, being met with basically no response over the past week. Given, some of my posts have been emotional (justified or not), but my latest post thoroughly addressing your criticisms has been entirely civil, thorough, intelligent, and signatory of the work I've done considering your viewpoint and interpretation of policy. It beyond a shadow of a doubt establishes that I've done work to examine your files. I couldn't have addressed them otherwise.
- With serious, genuine respect for your knowledge base and professional nature, I believe you strongly incorrect in your viewpoints and analyses relevant to the issues under question. You may not have a dispute with me, but I have one with you. I've given strict attention to what you've linked me to, and your advice and offerings. They have helped me evolve as an editor, but your contradiction of that I've given this attention to policy intrinsically calls me dishonest, argumentative, and disrespectful of your and the encylcopedia's wishes.
- My final nutshell (as I just can't debate this at length anymore), is that you have no particular clauses, and referenced no particular parts of the many sources I've used, for any of your claims against my edits and additions. You state generals and refer to files that I've continuously and more and more thoroughly digested at your request. Your mere references without particular quotes or explanation of how they apply or don't does absolutely nothing to address my claim that I have adhered to all those many policies, every line, every clause, all of them. You just, can't, contradict that claim with absolutely zero backing other than pointing out the mere existence of the guidelines that governs these issues. I've respected your references in replacement of any particular criticisms up until this point, but the sheer lack of any analysis to any particulars to the article -- the context of the references, the particulars of the videos, the whole picture created by all the information at hand, is just overwhelmingly incomprehensible to me.
- Just now, I've posted the most thorough, civil, exhaustive, and brief (in the sense that what's covered could not possibly be covered in less space), explanation of my views of Doyle's reliability as a self-publisher of parkour materials, on the discussion page. If you disagree at all, you need to provide arguments quoting specific policy clauses and references to materials. The theme of careful, close analysis taking into account all the facts at hand in order to declare what is reliable, verifiable, encyclopedic, notable, or not, saturates all the help files and policies. You make thin-air statements with no backing. I've done exhaustive, thorough fact-checking and analysis, particularly of all the referenced sources mentioned, spending days of work analyzing the whole picture. You need to do something other than claim "your article does not adhere to guidelines and policies". I don't agree, and we'd be at a deadlock if I haven't given exhaustive explanation of my claim. Your experience base does not make you automatically correct.
- One last time, absolutely directly, I'll state that your help has been invaluable in getting me involved with policies and guidelines, to this point. I will even take a look at the few references in your above comment I've not investigated or thoroughly investigated (some are new). But, I can't simply do this forever, every day, ever hour. Everything you've already linked me to, I've examined, analyzed, and commented on exhaustively. I've made many, many inquiries over the past week and a half that have gone unanswered. I very much understand being spent for all sorts of reasons, but the fact remains it's impossible to continue asking your help without some type of comment on those thorough analyses. Your opinions stand 99% unbacked other than broad statements. What we've addressed here is the nature of our communication and relationship. All my posts on this page and on the discussion page have gone untouched. I've increased their civility and politeness of tone, and still, completely uncommented on. I can't read help files forever. I've responded to many of your references, and there's nothing I can do from here if you refuse to respond to them. If you don't have time, that's understandable, but that doesn't give you the right to make claims about my character and integrity.
- I'm not sure precisely what direction I'm going in from here, but if you can't meet in some type of middle ground, I'm going to consider that I've exhausted the process listed in the dispute files listing all the ways to resolve a dispute before a claim is necessary. Days of full time work with no responses is simply out the window. I will not do so immediately, but please know I can longer consider this resolvable without something more from you out of the things I've just gone through. I really hope we can collaborate in the future, but I don't know how to begin closing this gap of non-communication from your side. I believe you're acting in good faith, but I can't comprehend this gap. Squish7 (talk) 02:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Summary: If I filed a dispute claim with you, these would be my main points: 1. You have not backed any of your claims with references to precise policy passages (using quotes, etc.). 2. You've not supported any of your arguments or statements with references to the particular context or material, showing no sign that you've closely weighed the spectrum of factors and facts at hand. 3. You make extraordinary and totally unjustified claims about my character (e.g. that I'm directly lying to you, the only consequence of the combination of my statements I've evaluated your links, and that you say I haven't done so at all.) 4. You lead me on, continusouly invite me to inquire, yet leave endless attempts to do so unanswered. 5. You allude to your status as an experienced user to imply you're necessarily correct, considering yourself immune to the very policies and guidelines you uphold and preach. Squish7 (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Update: I've begun to further the article. I've decided to (only) submit a dispute request if you edit it in a way I feel continues to violate policy. Please do not make any major edits/deletions without displaying references to particular clauses, with particular arguments, referencing multiple specific source references you have dispute with or demonstrating you've given extensive examination and weighing of the sea of sources I've provided. The policies are saturated with generals, exceptions, detailed factors, and voids of blanket bans. Squish7 (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Summary: If I filed a dispute claim with you, these would be my main points: 1. You have not backed any of your claims with references to precise policy passages (using quotes, etc.). 2. You've not supported any of your arguments or statements with references to the particular context or material, showing no sign that you've closely weighed the spectrum of factors and facts at hand. 3. You make extraordinary and totally unjustified claims about my character (e.g. that I'm directly lying to you, the only consequence of the combination of my statements I've evaluated your links, and that you say I haven't done so at all.) 4. You lead me on, continusouly invite me to inquire, yet leave endless attempts to do so unanswered. 5. You allude to your status as an experienced user to imply you're necessarily correct, considering yourself immune to the very policies and guidelines you uphold and preach. Squish7 (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Sincere about helping?
Cindy, if you are really sincere about helping let me ask you something.
I am considering writing an article about the Bloemfontein Children's Choir. The choir had existed as a multi-racial children's choir for 25 years and have toured and performed all over the world with the likes of Andre Rieu and Helmut Lotti. They have won awards and commendations in international competitions and have performed for 3 SA presidents, including Nelson Mandela
Unfortunately most 3rd party references to the choir are in non-english newspapers or publications, primarily Afrikaans. Would that satisfy the notibility requirement? Mvnrsa (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I would be more than willing to help! ;) I haven't heard of this choir before, but I think it sounds like it would make a great article. I'm surprised there isn't one up already. We don't require that the sources be in English, just that the content is verifiable. When I question sources in foreign languages, I generally run it through a translator to verify content, which is no skin off my nose. I would recommend starting the article in a subpage of your userspace, for example, here: User:Mvnrsa/Bloemfontein Children's Choir. Once you get up and running, if you need any help with formatting or adding references, be sure to hit me up. I look forward to reading your article. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- As a side note, I think an article about the choir's director, Willie Venter, would also be feasible. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- I created the first version of the choir's article. Some sections are still empty but please have a look and let me have your comments. Thank you Mvnrsa (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's coming along! I reformatted it for you and added the standard choir infobox template. When you go into the editing window, you can see additional fields into which you can place more information. I also ran the article through the reflinks toolserver. If you're not familiar with this, see this link: http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Reflinks Essentially, this tool is a little "cheat" to help with automatic citation formatting. Let me know if you have questions! And Happy New Year! Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 01:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- I created the first version of the choir's article. Some sections are still empty but please have a look and let me have your comments. Thank you Mvnrsa (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- As a side note, I think an article about the choir's director, Willie Venter, would also be feasible. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Please comment on Help talk:Citation Style 1
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Help talk:Citation Style 1. 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) 08:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Guild of Copy Editors 2011 Year-End Report
  We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2011. Read all about these in the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report.
Get your copy of the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report here
On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. We look forward to your support in 2012! – Your 2011 Coordinators: Diannaa (lead), The Utahraptor, and Slon02 and SMasters (emeritus). |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 02 January 2012
- Interview: The Gardner interview
- News and notes: Things bubbling along as Wikimedians enjoy their holidays
- WikiProject report: Where are they now? Part III
- Featured content: Ghosts of featured content past, present, and future
- Arbitration report: New case accepted, four open cases, terms begin for new arbitrators
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
bittersweet bettering/embitterment
Cindy, I appreciate that you did not make any major deletions to my additions. I will begin reviewing policy that relates to your quality, cleanup, and formatting tags. However, the issue that the article may not be sourced properly is something I've thoroughly addressed, spending dozens of hours studying the files you've referred me to, tediously revising my writing, addressing your objections with civility, clarity, and precision. You've stated your general objection already. You can't continue stating it (i.e. via a tag that says the same thing) without serious work addressing particular context. Respectfully, it stands I will file a dispute claim if you replace the tag or the like prior to combing the references and forming an exhaustive, documented opinion on the matter. I will continue to respect/study what you bring to the table, but I have the right to ask the same in return. I hope this compromising will set a precedent for eliminating any embitterment between us. Squish7 (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- I see you replaced the tag while I was writing this. It probably crossed over, but if you have read this and still replace it, I will file a dispute claim immediately. Squish7 (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I'm happy to hear that you have decided to review the applicable policies. Note that the use of primary sources to support notability is not appropriate. Please work to support claims of notability through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
- Significant: References about the subject – at least one lengthy paragraph, preferably more. Not passing mentions, not directory listings, not just any old thing that happens to have the name in it. Several of them. It must be notable.
- Reliable sources: Something that is generally trusted to tell the truth. A major newspaper, a factual, widely-published book, high-quality mainstream publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Not blogs, MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, fansites, or Twitter. It must be verifiable.
- Independent: Nothing written by the subject, paid for by the subject, or affiliated with the subject. Not their website, not a press release, not their employer, or their sponsors. It must be independent.
- Reliable sources noticeboard: It is recommended that you inquire and present your concerns and assertions regarding reliable sources to the RSN. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 18:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- I can't re-format my arguments again, not without some type of response from you to the hours I've spent already doing so. Your only response over the past month has been to refer to more and more policy files, guidelines, etc. I can't write a continuous stream of theses rehashing the same points. You must cite specific claims and particular context if you object to any my sourcing. I could respond to this latest thin-air formulation of your objection, but my contributions to Wikipedia can't include more than dozens of hours of my time to appease a single individual. If you spend hours viewing all the videos and reading all the relevant articles and form a coherent, precise opinion, and still disagree, then we can at least discuss the matter. Squish7 (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've thought through your above post. You're just not getting the idea that the time you spend typing out things I already know could be very beneficial to all involved if you could spend that time addressing particulars. Quotes like "at least one paragraph" say absolutely nothing about the Doyle article. Why not take the same time and say, "your last paragraph does not meet reliability because..." The sea of applicable policy in fusion with the content of my topic, writing, and 20-30 sources, create a COMPLEX picture. It's very isomorphic with the difference between learning from a textbook, and being able to ask questions in class. I feel like I'm asking questions that you could answer, but you just keep saying "read the textbook", when I already memorized it before walking into your class. Squish7 (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- You also have to take into account that all these clauses were not written with video networking in mind. With a void of clauses citing precisely "19 seconds of X video constitutes...", the more general mandates and purposes of Wikipedia reside. That is, its purpose and mandate generate all these clauses. You have to constantly question them and adapt them for them to evolve with the growing digital world. Squish7 (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- I can't re-format my arguments again, not without some type of response from you to the hours I've spent already doing so. Your only response over the past month has been to refer to more and more policy files, guidelines, etc. I can't write a continuous stream of theses rehashing the same points. You must cite specific claims and particular context if you object to any my sourcing. I could respond to this latest thin-air formulation of your objection, but my contributions to Wikipedia can't include more than dozens of hours of my time to appease a single individual. If you spend hours viewing all the videos and reading all the relevant articles and form a coherent, precise opinion, and still disagree, then we can at least discuss the matter. Squish7 (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Ryan Doyle
Hi, you took part in discussion regarding maintenance tags on the article Ryan Doyle, so i am informing you of ongoing discussion Talk:Ryan Doyle#Maintenance. Cheers, benzband (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Ryan Doyle's talk page. BTW, this has little to do with it but i shamelessly copied content from User:Cindamuse/Googs as i found the concept most interesting. 
benzband (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Marchmont Observatory
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Marchmont Observatory. 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) 09:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
seeking online ambassador
Greetings - During the Spring 2012 semester, my students enrolled in PSYSC 373, Industrial Psychology at Ball State University, will be creating/editing course-relevant wikipedia articles. I am doing this in response to the Association for Psychological Science Wikipedia Initiative. As I am a new wikipedia user, and most of my stduents (N = 40) are also likely to have little/no experience, I think someone such as yourself would be a great resource. Are you available? It is not clear to me from the existing pages how one goes about requesting an Ambassador.
Thanks, Michael J. Tagler, Ph.D., Assistant Professor. Mjtagler (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC) APS-Wikipedia Initiative
- I'm not familiar with the APS-Wikipedia Initiative WikiProject. The Wikipedia Education Program provides Online Ambassadors to work with university and college courses in the US, Canada, India, and Egypt (next session). The program is actually going through a transition right now. Unfortunately, I am not able to commit to assisting courses or students at this time. Essentially, with India and Egypt coming on board, there will be quite a bit of cleanup work that will be taking the majority of my time. This past session, I worked with over 300 students, in addition to serving on the Steering Committee, and have realized that I need to take a step back from burning the candle at both ends. How did you hear about the Ambassador Program? In the past, I worked with Dr. Newbold's class and found it quite enjoyable. Are you working with a Campus Ambassador? While I'm not able to commit to the class this semester, I'll certainly help you get plugged in. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply! I would very much appreciate your assistance to get "plugged in". Unfortunately, I'm not yet aware of any Campus Ambassadors here at Ball State University. I just sent an email to Dr. Newbold to learn of his experiences. I heard about the Ambassador program via the APS-Wikipedia Initiative, but it is not all clear to me how to get "plugged in", as you say! If I can't find a campus ambassador, I'm optimistic all will go well with one or two good online ambassadors. I will have approximately 40 students in the class that begins January 9, and I"m currently working out how to set everything up. Here is the official information from APS on their wikipedia initiative. Thanks again, I am very appreciative of your assistance. Mjtagler (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Meanwhile
I discovered this. Cooper Surname DNA Project. My ex-wife was/is a Cooper, her father was born in Scotland and came to the US at age 4 or 5, and this makes our kids part owners of Cooper DNA. I think. Can you tell me more about this, and is there a better place to do it? Carptrash (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Is that my eeklon at yahoo dot com address? Finding this message would be a great way to begin 2012. Carptrash (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure. When we click on the link at the right side of the Wikipedia page, email just goes directly to whichever email account you have attached to your Wikipedia account. Do you want me to forward it to the yahoo address? Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 16:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Please do. I'm new here (sort of) new enough to not know about that feature. Still Jan 1 and already I've learned something. Carptrash (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
CSD G2 "The article's talk page"
Agreed this should be deleted ASAP, but given the user probably created it in accident, isn't putting the standard CSD warning on their talk page a little bit bitey? --Ritchie333 (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for contacting me. It's actually recommended that CSD notices are always placed on the article creator's talk page, after placing on an article. The TW script adds it automatically. (The specific one was a notice, which serves to provide guidance.) Feel free to contact me if you have further questions or need help with anything. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 17:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Randi Morgan inspired by Donna Beck?
Why reverting my edits on the statements? There is no proof from non-primary sources that Randi is an inspiration of Donna Beck; to me it is original research because Randi and Donna were compared and analyzed. Why re-inserting them? --George Ho (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- The statement that the edit was removed due to lack of relevance was inappropriate, while based on personal opinion. The storyline of Randi and Donna were comparable and while currently unsourced is not original research. The comparison of characters is not the claim of notability and accordingly, may be supported by primary sources. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- ...Well, I did not know how biased my edits were, but I could not tell how neutral my edits were. I thought "relevancy" is neutral, isn't it? Does it matter whether Donna is an inspiration of Randi? How can primary sources, such as All My Children itself, confirm an inspiration? --George Ho (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I see your point. I would recommend copy editing to stating that the character of Randi has been compared to Donna, with the 1970s storyline of Dr. Chuck Tyler and the young prostitute mimicking the 2000s storyline of Dr. Frankie Hubbard and the young prostitute Randi. As far as relevancy, what is relevant to one may not be relevant to another. It's all subjective, lacking neutrality. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Isn't this also an original research without verification? Wouldn't inserting statements of comparison and contrast between two characters be analyzing without non-primary reliable sources? If that is not an original research, then what else is that? --George Ho (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Moreover, I have taken your points that subjective statements may be valuable, even if they do not verify notability and neutrality. Still, I stick my views on those statements. --George Ho (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if I wasn't clear (which is apparent after reading what I wrote above). Subjective statements equate to personal opinion, lacking neutrality. As far as verification, the show itself (as a primary source), as well as books can provide verification. There are actually several books that offer details. I have to be honest, I'm coming down with a migraine, and need to take a break. I'll add some sources to the article later. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 21:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Therefore, are either the statements that were re-inserted or my views on them "subjective"? ...To be honest, I have begun to realize that comparison between two of them may have balanced the reality and fiction, yet I'm too blind and too literate to interpret. I didn't realize: whether or not the comparison relates to this character's fictional background does not affect a possible impact on culture. Still, if no non-primary sources confirm these, they may be confirmed as "original research". Am I right? --George Ho (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I just got done copy editing the information and adding some references. Essentially, the content was used to bring what we call an "in universe" aspect of the fictional subject. Take a look and let me know if you have any questions. (I still have a migraine, but it's lessened due to a monstrous icepack. ;) Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 00:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Therefore, are either the statements that were re-inserted or my views on them "subjective"? ...To be honest, I have begun to realize that comparison between two of them may have balanced the reality and fiction, yet I'm too blind and too literate to interpret. I didn't realize: whether or not the comparison relates to this character's fictional background does not affect a possible impact on culture. Still, if no non-primary sources confirm these, they may be confirmed as "original research". Am I right? --George Ho (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if I wasn't clear (which is apparent after reading what I wrote above). Subjective statements equate to personal opinion, lacking neutrality. As far as verification, the show itself (as a primary source), as well as books can provide verification. There are actually several books that offer details. I have to be honest, I'm coming down with a migraine, and need to take a break. I'll add some sources to the article later. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 21:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I see your point. I would recommend copy editing to stating that the character of Randi has been compared to Donna, with the 1970s storyline of Dr. Chuck Tyler and the young prostitute mimicking the 2000s storyline of Dr. Frankie Hubbard and the young prostitute Randi. As far as relevancy, what is relevant to one may not be relevant to another. It's all subjective, lacking neutrality. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- ...Well, I did not know how biased my edits were, but I could not tell how neutral my edits were. I thought "relevancy" is neutral, isn't it? Does it matter whether Donna is an inspiration of Randi? How can primary sources, such as All My Children itself, confirm an inspiration? --George Ho (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
A new move request has been started suggesting that it be moved to "DJ Ozma". You are welcome to contribute, once more.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. Have a good day! Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 17:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Enjoy
Congratulations on receiving the first ever CHOCOLATE IN DANDY, LIQUOR IS QUICKER & COMBINED THEY ARE UNBEATABLE award. Please wear it (or whatever you plan to do with it) with pride. Carptrash (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- SWEET! Thanks... exactly what I need this fine freezing morning! ;) Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 17:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
A noted LA musician has returned
And he's editing again. Natty10000 (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- If I'm notable, Natty, why do leave Cinda's notability tag? Ace Baker (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying that even though it was a cut-and-paste move, since only two edits were made to the original article it doesn't matter? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 18:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Essentially, yes. The first article has only edits by the article creator, who requested deletion. If there were substantial edits by other editors in the first article (which is not currently reflected), we would make the move and history merge as suggested. There's no reason to "move" the article from Mathais Svalina, since the article already exists at Mathias Svalina. Rather than delete either article, the first is a plausible redirect to the second. If it wasn't, we would only need to delete the first article. Hope this makes sense. In the end, the results are the same, but no deletion is required. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 18:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that makes perfect sense. Only problem is that I had asked DragonflySixtySeven to look at it before you got started, and now we have the world's most confusing page history... Nolelover Talk·Contribs18:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello! Thanks for the edits. How can I add to the "notability" of this author so the entry is no longer flagged for notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jecz (talk • contribs) 20:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- To which article are you referring? Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Empowerment evaluation - repost
Hi I would appreciate it if you would repost my empowerment evaluation page. I think it is an important contribution to make to the evaluation community. I am the founder of the approach. I presented it to the American Evaluation Association in 1993, as part of my presidential address. I am the author or co-author of many of the books and articles involved and, as such, I can see where that might have triggered the automatic deletion and appearance of a COI problem. However, upon inspection, I think I provided a balance perspective on the topic. I have cited many colleagues who are critical of the approach (two waves of critique), as well as supporters. In addition, I have conducted evaluations for over 25 years, including traditional and empowerment and qualitative and quantitative approaches. I am also happy to modify the piece as you recommend. Many thanks in advance for your assistance. Best wishes.- David Profdavidf (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please contact the editor that deleted your article at Tnxman307. Keep in mind that as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not the place to promote awareness of your career, books, or products. We cannot accept copyrighted materials on the encyclopedia either. In essence, we would need documentation that you are the copyright holder and that you agree to release the content to Wikipedia. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 21:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
William C. Braithwaite/William Charles Braithwaite
Dear Cindy, Thanks for your message on my talkpage. I'm a bit confused by it however -- as you say you are deleting the William Charles Braithwaite page. It is much more sensible to delete the William C. Braithwaite page, as you in fact appear to have done. I'd appreciate it if that's the way round we resolve it (rather than deleting William Charles Braithwaite as you seem to suggest on my talkpage). This should be uncontroversial -- I created both pages in quick succession, so it's not stepping on anyone's toes. The whole issue has arisen because I used "Copy/paste" rather than "Move", so I'm apologetic and grateful for your help. FrenchieAlexandre (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not to worry, I figured that was what you intended. We went ahead and deleted the William Charles Braithwaite, simply in order to be able to move the William C. Braithwaite article to that location. After the William Charles Braithwaite was deleted, we were able to "move" the article, creating a redirect from William C. Braithwaite. Just in case someone keys in the phrase, "William C. Braithwaite", they will end up at the intended article. Does this make any sense? I kinda feel like I'm talking in circles. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 03:51, 7 January 2012 (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) 09:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Cindamuse, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Cindamuse/Workshop/Doug Owsley.
- See a log of files removed today here.
- Shut off the bot here.
- Report errors here.
- If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
AN/I
There is a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Block review/unblock proposal, in which you might have an interest. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi -- I'm working on the page Client-Directed Outcome-Informed therapy, which just got tagged for copyvio. That happened before, and I rewrote it and got it cleared by AngelOfSadness talk before reposting. Can you remove speedy delete tag and/or advise how to proceed? Thanks Engelhardt (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would recommend working on it in a subpage of your userspace, then submitting it to the Articles for Creation team. I found the copyright violation very quickly, without prior knowledge that it had been previously deleted. You can review the duplication report here. You can run your own report at this site: http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/duplicationdetector/. Feel free to contact me again if you have questions or need help. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 04:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that's exactly what I did before and thought I had done everything I needed to do by getting clearance from the admin before moving it back to the main page. I've edited the article some more to try to avoid copyvio, but after reviewing the duplicate detector report, I think a lot of the hits are false positives based on the fact the two short summary pages on the same topic drawing from the same sources are necessarily going to use a lot of the same phrases such as: the names of the developers of the approach, the names of the two brief surveys that are given as part of the approach, the name of the approach itself, and various terms of art such as "correlation" and "subjective experience." It also seems bogus that the top hit on the detector report is the title of the allegedly copyvio'd website which is referenced in the wikipedia article. Best - Engelhardt (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Don't worry about the false positive at the top of the report, which is easy to discern. Keep working on the article to remove direct copyright violations. Remember to edit the article using your own words. Close paraphrasing remains a copyright violation. I can't speak for the other editor, but we don't have a process where an editor or admin provides clearance void of further review. Overall, outside of the duplication report, it is fairly easy to see the copyvio. A comparison of text from both URLs reveals direct correlation. Again, just keep working on it. I still recommend copying it back to your subpage, since another editor may come along and delete the article while you're working on it in the mainspace. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 05:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice and encouragement, and also thanks for addressing my confusion in working with multiple editors/admins. Best, Engelhardt (talk) 05:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Don't worry about the false positive at the top of the report, which is easy to discern. Keep working on the article to remove direct copyright violations. Remember to edit the article using your own words. Close paraphrasing remains a copyright violation. I can't speak for the other editor, but we don't have a process where an editor or admin provides clearance void of further review. Overall, outside of the duplication report, it is fairly easy to see the copyvio. A comparison of text from both URLs reveals direct correlation. Again, just keep working on it. I still recommend copying it back to your subpage, since another editor may come along and delete the article while you're working on it in the mainspace. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 05:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that's exactly what I did before and thought I had done everything I needed to do by getting clearance from the admin before moving it back to the main page. I've edited the article some more to try to avoid copyvio, but after reviewing the duplicate detector report, I think a lot of the hits are false positives based on the fact the two short summary pages on the same topic drawing from the same sources are necessarily going to use a lot of the same phrases such as: the names of the developers of the approach, the names of the two brief surveys that are given as part of the approach, the name of the approach itself, and various terms of art such as "correlation" and "subjective experience." It also seems bogus that the top hit on the detector report is the title of the allegedly copyvio'd website which is referenced in the wikipedia article. Best - Engelhardt (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)