User talk:Cindamuse/Archive 4

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

GOCE drive has begun[edit]

Hello, I just wanted to take a moment and announce that the September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive has started, and will run for a month. Thanks for signing up. There's a special prize for most edits on the first day, in case you've got high ambitions. --Diannaa (Talk) 02:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Diannaa at 03:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

October drive[edit]

Sorry, guys. The wikification drive has been bumped to October. You might have noticed already, however. I'm amazed how many people came on as soon as I sent out the invite. With a few more, we can easily meet our goal. Just remember. Concentrate your firepower on the 2008 articles, and you should have no problems. Great work! Also, if you have time, please also invite other users to participate. Thanks!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 21:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shenell Edmonds[edit]

You've made a decent case toward her having the fanbase that meets WP:ENT, but we also have the problem that proving the fanbase is difficult... as fan clubs themselves are never seen as WP:RS, and one has to then find an RS that at least mentions the fanbase. A major problem is that the wording of WP:ENT actually encourages OR, in that it speaks toward fan base and cult following without actually setting criteria for determination of such. Sigh. What I propose[1][2] is that we agree to a temporary merge and redirect to List of One Life to Live cast members as long as we can spin her back out if/when she wins an award or gets another notable gig. Reasonable? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Too funny! ;) I was posting there while you were posting here. I don't support the idea of a merge and redirect. Edmonds was already merged, or included in said article in February 2009. This proposal would only amount to an effective delete. I may make a RfC to revise or address notability issues as stated in the AfD. Cindamuse (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just in case the article gets deleted, I would encourage you to userfy the article so that a future article may be included according to your proposal. Cindamuse (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the beauty of a redirect is that it preserves the article history until such time as she gets that "one" more project that everyone seems to demand... upon which time it can be easily resurrected by anyone. And yes... there needs to be some major discussion as to how to qualify a fan base, specially as there are no "RS" fan clubs... even as ENT allows fan clubs to be used to measure following. Tough catch-22. But yes... I can gt a userfication. Funny that no one even thought to suggest an incubation. Sigh. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey there friend. I didn't realize that the history was preserved with a redirect. In that case, yes, I would support that over a delete. I'll make a notation in the AfD. As far as the incubator, I just think it's so fairly new (one year) and really not promoted by many editors or Wikimedia. People really don't know about it. Suggestion: Why don't you consider writing an article for the Signpost about the benefits of article incubation? I think I may spend some time over there and see what I can do to help some articles. If you're interested in writing an article on the wonders of the egg and need help, let me know. I'd be happy to write it with you. Cindamuse (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am8er[edit]

Why delete it? She's a singer, of course all singer's have an article, whats really wrong with her article? Theres a million musician article's out there and you choose to delete this one without giving me a simple explanation! I think you know what the importance is about the article. ozurbanmusic (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Articles of singers are required to meet inclusion criteria found at WP:MUSICBIO. The subject of this article fails to meet notability standards appropriate for an encyclopedia. Cindamuse (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok she is a new singer in Australia. Her first single "Kill that BITCH" was a promo single, and some promo singles never chart. Her second single "10 Date Commandments" was just released on iTunes at the end of Augusut, so it will chart soon (maybe this week). There are also refs of online articles about her. Her early life section is from her biography. If this article is going to get deleted, it will be created again later on in the month. She is just only developing as a singer. ozurbanmusic (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, there are millions of musician articles who have not released any albums, Am8er will release her album in December.

  • Each article is judged on its own merits, rather than comparison with others. Honestly, it is highly unlikely that the subject of this article will meet notability criteria within one month's time. At this point though, make your statements on the article's talk page. Another editor will view your claims and make a decision accordingly. They may decide to remove the speedy delete tag and escalate the issue to a proposed delete or open the proposal for discussion among other editors for a week, after which an administrator will make a decision according to policy and guidelines whether or not to keep or delete the article. Making your statements here will do nothing to resolve any issues regarding this article. Cindamuse (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so your putting the article up for deletion because of it's references? Well I've changed the references to more proper ones. So theres really no need to put it up for deletion now. ozurbanmusic (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did add a summary of why i removed it!! Can you just give me a simple reason, not just copy and paste a template of what to say. It's about the references. I get it. ozurbanmusic (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's great that you added a summary. It's important to provide an edit summary with all edits made. However, in this case, AfD deletion tags, as clearly stated on the tag itself, cannot be removed until the AfD discussion is closed. At that time, an administrator will act accordingly and either delete the article, or remove the tag and make a deletion notation on the talk page. The simple reason is that the subject fails notability criteria according to WP:MUSICBIO. This is the issue that needs to be resolved. Cindamuse (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tacking on a comment to this topic, since it's related, but it's only a procedural matter: I declined the speedy deletion on Strawberries and Kittens, but only because the article on Am8er still exists, so WP:CSD#A9 doesn't really apply... for now, of course. I see you've nominated Am8er for AfD, and I see no reason the album's article shouldn't be up for discussion in a similar vein. Perhaps it could be bundled with the existing AfD discussion, since I would surmise both articles would face similar fates, especially if WP:RS is the primary concern. Again, I'm not making a statement one way or the other about the quality of either article... just that the speedy criterion really doesn't apply. Thanks! --Kinu t/c 23:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll go ahead and add it to the AfD. The primary concern is notability. As far as WP:RS goes, the article currently has blogs and iTunes for references. Just doesn't cut it there. And notability has simply not yet been made. It's really nothing personal, just consistency according to policy. Cindamuse (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Books of Guillermo and Ana Maldonado[edit]

Hi. Where is the information about the books written by Guillermo and Ana Maldonado? I do not. Greetings. Jgarpal (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey there, brother. Sorry I have not been able to respond earlier. I've been dealing with a migraine. Information from the lists of books was used to briefly describe the types of books written and included above under Church founders. The list is not appropriate for an article about the church. However, here's an idea that may interest you. I'm not familiar with his books. Are they self-published? Do they have ISBNs? My thought is this: Maldonado may actually be notable as an author and could probably have an article of his own, separate from the church. We would just need to make sure that the books are not self-published. What do you think? Same thing for his wife. I'm really down for the count, physically right now, so I'm not able to do any research. Maybe tomorrow though. Let me know your thoughts. If the books are not self-published, this would be a great opportunity for you to create a couple of new articles. Its more experience, and tends to be advantageous in advancing as an editor on Wikipedia, if you ever had the desire to do so. While I could start the article as well, I don't want to steal your thunder. One of my goals on Wikipedia is to not only help articles succeed, but to help other editors succeed. So, if I can help, let me know. Just a thought. Cindamuse (talk) 06:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello again. First of all, thank you for everything. Sorry about your migraine, and I hope that you can be totally well very soon.
  • On the list of books (and take this opportunity to tell you that also on the list of beliefs) I think it would have been preferable to stay as it was. The truth is that I took long time to find the two lists and put them in the article, and I do not see the problem they could not stay in the article.
  • About to begin articles about Guillermo and Ana Maldonado, I have no time, I have no desire, and I have no knowledge of their lives to write about them. If you want to do this, is very fine with me; I am sure you will do an excellent job.
  • At this moment I'm moving from Miami FL to Houston TX. When I got there and I set, maybe I go back to Wikipedia to write something, but the truth is that I fear that there in Houston I will have less time than here in Miami, because I will be much busier.
  • Again thanks for everything. I wish you the best in your life. A greeting.
  • Jgarpal (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concern about including the list of books in the article would lend undue weight to the pastors rather than the church itself per WP:UNDUE. The list of beliefs was considered promotional and not of encyclopedic nature. However, the information was available through the external links. If the books that Guillermo and Ana wrote have ISBNs and are published by mainstream, rather than self-published, then they would most likely merit separate articles. If self-published or published by their church, they would probably be deleted. I doubt that I would have the quantity of information to write thorough articles about them, although a couple of them sound interesting. I hope you come back to Wikipedia after you move to Houston. Say Hi when you settle. My thoughts and prayers are with you. Cindamuse (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Am... The Concert[edit]

hi, I was wandering if you can put the article, I Am... The Concert up for deletion. The article has no references plus a Beyonce tour under that name doesn't exist. It was just some user creating a fake article. ozurbanmusic (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry I didn't respond earlier. Major migraine. It looks like the article was deleted though. I remember someone put up a bunch of similar articles and they were deleted as a whole. Hope you have a great day/evening. Cindamuse (talk) 06:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

stupid question[edit]

Are you really married to Jimbo Wales? I find the claim on your user page to be highly dubious... Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • No such thing as stupid questions! Honestly though, I'm just a bonafide nutcase. In my real life, I'm rarely serious and always looking for the lighter side of life. When I found that particular Userbox among the others, I laughed hysterically and couldn't resist adding it to the others on my User page. I'm just a silly girl at heart. And rather dubious at that. Nuts. Seriously, nuts. You've been warned. ; ) Cindamuse (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I figured it was a joke but one wikipedia one can never be sure Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 September 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

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

Stubs
Kim Walker (musician)
East Germanic strong verb
Shifting Realities
Acaulospora
Verrucariaceae
Rhytismataceae
Good Friends (album)
Cropley Ashley-Cooper, 6th Earl of Shaftesbury
Sinosikat?
Leon Rooke
Craig Eastmond
Virginia Fox
Kyle Bartley
Shasta Bible College and Graduate School
National Academy of Sciences, India
Neil Banfield
Martyn Layzell
Grand Champion
Phyllachoraceae
Cleanup
H. Michael Shepard
Jack Wilshere
Tanya Chisholm
Merge
Christmas Is Almost Here Again
Oil and energy resources of Saudi Arabia
Justin Bieber
Add Sources
As the Music Plays
2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull
United Kingdom
Wikify
Irish people in mainland Europe
Private university
Brielle LaCosta
Expand
Supernatural
People's Republic of China
Energy policy of Malaysia

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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armageddon theology WritersCramp (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • With all due respect, I came across the AfD yesterday and reviewed the article accordingly. I support a merge/redirect. I chose not to participate in the discussion, because there were several other editors making the same recommendation. Cindamuse (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Cindamuse. You have new messages at Nanodance's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

David michael close[edit]

Hi there, I've just taken that one to Afd here. And Nanodance was right to remove the CSD tag, speedy deletion templates can be removed by any editor except the original author. "Hangon" is only meant for them. De728631 (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catch. Cindamuse (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete[edit]

Hi, yes I'm new to this, thanks for your assistance. I would like for the Rise above the silver and gold and the Stanley Henson page to be deleted. It's no big deal here, now I can't delete because someone made some minor grammar and formatting changes? To articles that you don't want here anyway? There is no balance. The comments are negative, mean spirited and insulting. I don't want the pages up anymore. Please delete. Since I am the author, what rights do I have if any? It seems like the editors with seniority have ego and power issues. Please just delete both pages. Thank you. Sistaliz09 (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Honestly, I am not able to delete the articles. They are required to run the course of the discussion for seven days. The other editors that participated in editing the article were making good faith attempts to help you keep the articles. They can only be deleted at the request of the initial author, when they are the sole editor of the article. Wikipedia is a community, of which no one editor can claim ownership of an article. As such, there is really no recourse as the initial author. I realize this must be very frustrating for you, and I wish I could help, but my hands are tied. Cindamuse (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 September 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royal consorts[edit]

hi there,

the policy is here Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Consorts_of_sovereigns. sincerely Gryffindor (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • With all due respect, the link provided is not a policy, but a guideline. Is there another link that you intended to provide to the specific policy? Cindamuse (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need not apologize[edit]

But you did, as your second edit shows, not read the page before tagging it. So, in restoring one, while implicitly admitting the other was inappropriate, the summary:'do not remove maintenance tags unless you resolve the problem to which the template refers,' is also incorrect, since 'maintenance tags' is plural, and I did resolve one of the problems you created by removing it. So, just for the record: you do well to remind yourself 'do not apply maintenance tags to pages you have not read,' in the future.Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't quite know to what you are referring, but in any case, the notation would be correct in that it is not appropriate to remove maintenance tags unless you resolve the issues to which the template refers. If you removed a tag from a page, the notation or warning would be properly placed and noted. Thanks. Cindamuse (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit here placed the following tag , on the page, despite the fact the page had two references visible at the bottom of the page.Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the response. I fully read the page prior to adding the maintenance tags. The references to which you are referring were factored as part of the list of scientific papers in the article. After I added the tag, you appropriately reformatted and added a reference grouping. I appreciate your attention to addressing the concern quickly. If you need assistance in editing articles to comply with the Manual of Style (wikification) for biographies, please see MOS:BIO. Thank you. Cindamuse (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle[edit]

I don't use it myself, so can't help. The article was a clear candidate for a speedy, so I just zapped it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dang. Thanks for the response just the same. Good call on the speedy. An earlier PROD was removed. Cindamuse (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE newsletter[edit]

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive!
GOCE September 2010 backlog elimination drive progress graphs

Participation report — We have 71 participants in the September drive. 95 people signed up for the July drive, and in May we had 36.

Progress report — We have been making solid progress in eliminating the 2008 articles from the backlog so far. If we continue to focus our firepower we can completely wipe out 2008 from the queue. Overall volumes are lower than expected though, with nearly a thousand articles yet to be done if we are to meet our overall target. If you have not yet participated in the drive, we recommend you do so. If each person who signed up edits one article per day from now till the end of the month we can eliminate another 1,065 articles from the backlog. All contributions are appreciated.

Announcement: credit for 10k+ articles — Participants editing a 10k word article may claim credit for two 5k+ articles on the leaderboard. Those that edit a 15k word article may claim credit for three. Regardless, the article is still counted as a single article in the tallies.

Reminder — Articles from the Requests page can be included in your tally, even if they do not have a copy edit tag. This is a great place to go if you are interested in finding a higher quality article to work on.

This newsletter was prepared for the GOCE by Diannaa (Talk), S Masters (talk),  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK, and The Raptor Let's talk.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Guild of Copy Editors at 15:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for checking the John Jay Shipherd article[edit]

Thank you for reading the John Jay Shipherd article and your kind comments. Mac John Concord (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • No problem. It's a well-written article. Have a great day/evening. Cindamuse (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Cut City[edit]

Hello Cindamuse. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Cut City, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: multiple albums on notable label. Thank you. Kimchi.sg (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Kimchi. I saw that. It's all good. The subject actually fails WP:BAND. I sent it to AfD. Unfortunately, it appears that the author is also an apparent ducksock, attempting to keep the article. There is a lack of notability established through significant coverage through reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cut City is an indie Swedish rock band that released one album on an independent label. The "Other Releases" on the article are not significant as demos, mix tapes, and promo recordings. None of the labels are considered notable. GSL was also shut down in 2007. No references were provided outside of social networking sites (FB and MS). They changed those up, but the current references now include one from their label (which is not independent) and a blog (which is not reliable). I ran a search for references and was not able to find any that were not self-published or independent of the subject. Also nominated their two releases that had articles, Cut City (EP) (four song promo release) and Exit Decades, due to lack of notability per WP:NSONGS. They both did not chart and had no hits. Cut City has been relatively unsuccessful, and accordingly have made announcements that they will be breaking up after their 2010 recording (not yet released). No harm; no foul. I respect your decision. You are more than welcome to participate in the AfD. Have a great day. Cindamuse (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 September 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback forum[edit]

Hi, I noticed you helped out a lot at WP:FEED. Great job! However, I think if you used some sort of {{talkback}} tag on their talk page, to just alert them that you've replied, because often people forget they've even made a request. Thanks! Chevymontecarlo 06:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for contacting me. I went back and added a feedback talkback on the various pages. On another note, how far back do you think is feasible to go in providing feedback? I notice that the archives go back to 2006. At that point, the backlog will doubtfully ever be erased. What are your thoughts about how to eliminate the backlog? Cindamuse (talk) 08:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there have been various discussions about that but I think some of the oldest requests (i.e. 2006) aren't really worth replying to unless the user is still active, because a lot of newbies get turned away or their articles get deleted. I think you should perhaps just work on the requests from this week - I have noticed that if their request does not get answered the first time users tend to make another identical request at a later date. It's up to you! Chevymontecarlo 14:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ADMS Page[edit]

Hi, thank you for taking the time to review my article and offer feedback. I truly felt that the references I supplied, including research papers from disinterested parties, and magazine and news articles met the notability criteria. Do you think that this is a refernce issue or more the style of writing I am using, I know I tend to be a bit fluffy and I will review the article for that. Thanks Lori Costello (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Lori, I think it's more the style of writing. You just need to clearly state in the lede why ADMS is notable, while summarizing the article overall. You may have the appropriate references, but you need to include the copy in the article. The references are supposed to indicate from "where" you found information to assist in writing the article. What is it about ADMS that sets it apart from other safety training programs? What may help, is moving the first paragraph under "History" to the lede. I think that would address notability appropriately. As far as writing style (nothing against Wikipedia)... but write as neutral (read boring) as you can. Articles are acceptable in an encyclopedia when they are written from a somewhat "disinterested" point of view. Do you know who Ben Stein is? Write as if he was reading your copy. (Don't mind me. I have the flu and the meds are taking over.) Let me know if you need further help. Cindamuse (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I'll work on redoing the lede paragraph, and if you don't mind ask you to take a look at it again. Thanks and feel better. Lori Costello (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Knowourba (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Hi Lori, As suggested by other respected Wikipedia authors, I agree with them that this article requires re-writing on a neutral note. Tip 1: "Neutral" - Please go through articles on any topic in the health care sector ( because the health care sector uses references from clinical trials, which is in sync, with what you are trying to write) to get a sense of their neutral tone. Tip 2: "References" - Please use statistics from properly referenced sources.[reply]
As an example, you have written in your article "It has been found that when trainees are able to participate, both verbally and physically in a training exercise, retention is 90%, in great contrast to a 10% retention rate of what they hear, and 50% retention rate of what they see and hear" You have referred this source to a pdf article written by Adams Shwan (3rd one). However, if you open the pdf and read this article, the paragraph before Conclusion says "According to Lack and Kahler, a learner remembers 90 percent of what is taught if given the opportunity to participate through demonstration (both physical and verbal)." Can you get hold of this article written by Lack, Kahler et al...? This would be called a back reference (the pdf has got further references) which is "Lack, R.W. and K. Kahler. Essentials of Safety and Health Management. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Inc., 1996." It is always better to write a thoroughly researched article for wikipedia users, else, it would lead to claims like 'My toothpaste is 100% germ free with a lot of *,# symbols'! :-)
Note to you Trust me!...you are an amazing writer....If you are an author of any book, do send me a copy of the same.

  • @Knowourba Not sure how you ended up here, but your comments may be better placed on the talk page of the author of the above draft, rather than inserted in a review conversation. Additionally, when articles are placed in the mainspace, comments would be placed on the article's talk page, rather than the author. And I agree, Lori is a good writer. Thank you. Cindamuse (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No harm; no foul. I'm simply suggesting that your comments may be better seen on the author's page rather than mine. Best wishes, Cindamuse (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tess_broussard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tess_Broussard[edit]

Thank you for your feedback. it was clear and helpful. I will search for better sources.

David Dk4wiki (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter[edit]

Hey there friend. I saw that you made an edit summary stating "Twitter may be used as a source when it is a primary source about the subject." I'm puzzled. WP:TWITTER specifically states to the contrary, that tweets are not acceptable. Precedence in various ANI discussions and whatnot have stated that social networking sites, MS, FB, Twitter, etc. are not to be used, since anybody can sign on, create an account, and claim that they are that specific person or celebrity making the posts. Heck, I've been impersonated once on MS and twice on Twitter. So, what are your thoughts here? Why do you think they are acceptable? Cindamuse (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I have read and still read is "Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Cross-reference with WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.". Then you understand that Twitter may be used as a source when the source is the primary subject. "We are releasing our new album, Fallen Angel, on October 31" would be acceptable while "Our friends over at Spork told us that they are releasing their new album, Fallen Angel, on October 31" would not be. (Walter)
  • I hear you on your last statements in differentiating between the two tweets. However, the first quote is really not indicative of Twitter, i.e., if Hawking self-published a book on science or math, the source would be considered reliable. The second quote is clear, but runs smack dab into verifiability issues. It is essential that the source is verified without a doubt, through corresponding documentation, that it is in fact a primary source. The issue goes back to verifiability. The verifiability policy specifically states that Twitter is unacceptable and that "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." Am I reading this wrong? Cindamuse (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your feedback[edit]

Cindamuse: This is foleylibrarian and i want to thank you for your feedback. we are doing this Wikipedia project for a few classes at the university and we have freshmen authors doing the writing and me for posting. we are GREEN...and i don't mean environmental!! it has been fun, but your comments are right on when you say it is a bit 'promotional'....

i will work on cleaning things up when i get time in a week or so...also i appreciate you comments about using other sources. that is doable as well. i'm still working on the picture thing, but everyday i learn stuff!!

again, thank you for your time and interest in the article. keep commenting if you find more things that will clean things up and improve them.

best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foleylibrarian (talk • contribs) 20:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let me know if you need any additional help. As far as photos, I noticed some on the library's wiki site. You might want to check and see if those can be used. One important to keep in mind. You need to change your username, since it is a violation of username policy. You'll want to select a name that is not indicative of an article that you wish to edit or work on. If the name is not changed, it may be flagged by an editor and blocked from further use. You do not want your account blocked, so I recommend doing this as quickly as possible. See WP:RENAME and WP:USERNAME. Best wishes, Cindamuse (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tess_broussard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tess_Broussard[edit]

Well i'm a bit confused.

Whether Tess Broussard is considered a notable topic for Wiki, something I would question when i look at other wiki topics, i don't understand why the photo was deleted.

if the article is deleted that is one discussion but the photo was documented correctly and no one seemed to acknowledge that. you did in your post to me but i guess you didn't let the correct admins know.

please let me know why this photo was deleted as i believe it should remain.

thanks.

David

Dk4wiki (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did you follow the instructions on your talk page and send the email to permissions-en‐at‐wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license? The image had a tag that stated that you would be sending an email letter of permission coming. The lack of a letter received at OTRS resulted in the deletion of the image. Photo copyrights work out when the appropriate permission is sent to OTRS as instructed on your talk page. At this point, you'll need to contact the editor (User:Explicit) that deleted the image and inquire about whether or not they received your letter. Ask the editor if there is anything you can do to retrieve the image. Good luck. Cindamuse (talk) 03:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tess_broussard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tess_Broussard - thanks[edit]

Once again, thank you.

David

Dk4wiki (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HOPE BENEATH OUR FEET - many thanks for the help, Cindamuse. At this point there is only the Huffington Post review as an outside reference, so I will have to wait till it is reviewed by other institutions to offer additional links. I appreciate your assistance! Best, e —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eharrold (talk • contribs) 16:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Climate of Hyderabad[edit]

i was making its main article.....but due to power failure i couldnt save it..15jan19932010 (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's a complete bummer. Sorry that it happened. The article was flagged as a duplicate of a current section in another article. The current Hyderabad, Sindh article is clearly within readable prose and does not suggest or require a split at this time. That said, I did not delete the article. Check with the deleting editor and present your thoughts there. Best wishes, Cindamuse (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback - large increase in requests[edit]

The graph says it all, really; massive increase since we cleared the backlog and introduced a bit better system. As I've said before, it is a 'victim of its own success', I think. Currently, it is pretty backlogged.

Quite a few get missed, as you can see if you flick through the archives - but I don't know what we can do about that, really, other than hope more people give feedback.

The long-term solution would be to keep these editors; so many come to just create one article, and are never heard of again; if just a few of those stayed, and started giving feedback, then we'd have a more workable system.

I suggest discussion in this WT:FEED section. Cheers!

(I've send this message out to a small number of people that I think/hope will be interested; people who have given feedback, etc. if wrong, apologies, let me know.)

 Chzz  ►  00:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Changing my user name[edit]

hey, do you know where i can change my user name? thank you, RhoneDmDery (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure, go here: WP:CHU. There are instructions there and a link to the process under "Venue", depending on what kind of change you want to make. Best wishes, Cindamuse (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! RhoneDmDery (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Case, Jr.[edit]

Thank you for your help. However, my edits had been caught with copyright problems and thus had been deleted, along with your edit summarized copyedit; formatting per WP:MOSBIO. I had not read its Script so I cannot do this all by myself. Would like to help me redo this?Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I noticed you're working on it. Not sure why it was tagged copyright, since the previous text was blanked. Honestly, I'm puzzled. Some of the article content was based on the website, but it was properly attributed. I have a legal background with specialized knowledge of copyright laws. I never noticed anything inappropriate with the article. Sorry this happened. Keep working on it. I will also try to do anything I can see. I'm in Washington state and it's 5am here. I actually am really sick right now, so I won't be able to work on it at the moment. Possibly in ten hours or so, I will take another look. Again, sorry this happened. Cindamuse (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cindamuse/Archive_4&oldid=1080354403"