User talk:Cindamuse/Archive 6

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

Your GA nomination of Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 10th Earl of Shaftesbury[edit]

The article Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 10th Earl of Shaftesbury you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 10th Earl of Shaftesbury for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Jezhotwells (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE copy edit drive[edit]

Greetings, the Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invites you to participate in the November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 November at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 November at 23:59 (UTC). The goal for this drive is to reduce the backlog by 10% (approximately 500 articles). We hope to focus our efforts on the oldest three months (January, February, and March 2009) and the newest three months (September, October, and November 2010) of articles in the queue.

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

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

Awards and barnstars

A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants, some of which are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.

Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive!
— The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions, S Masters (talk), and Diannaa (Talk)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iligan Computer Institute[edit]

This appears to be a notable technical school. I removed your speedy tag and formatted it. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to pre-approve new entry of STREAT Melbourne?[edit]

Hello there, Thank you for your feedback on the initial STREAT Melbourne entry. While I was disappointed that the STREAT Melbourne entry was deleted I do understand the reasoning and my apologies for any inconvenience. I have been working on a new entry will it be possible to send you the new copy to double check before I press save? Thanking you (Sunisa.nardone (talk) 05:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

  • Hi! Wikipedia doesn't have an approval process, but I would be happy to review the article in a subpage of your userspace. Just give me the location of the draft and I will take a look at it. Cindamuse (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again, this is most appreciated Sunisa.nardone (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Cxbx AfD[edit]

No offense, but I am aware of the AfD process, and was in the process of completing it when I received your message. --Teancum (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • No offense here, either. I waited a couple of minutes and when the process remained open, I posted the prompt on your talk page. At that same moment, you were completing the AfD process. Thanks for catching it! Cindamuse (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial MS[edit]

Thanks for letting me know about this!

Please review the previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring Branch Middle School (Hedwig Village, Texas) WhisperToMe (talk) 06:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Cindamuse. You have new messages at Dodger67's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Roger (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another reply at my talk page and an invitation to join WP:WikiProject Disability, your experience will be very wecome. Roger (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested[edit]

If you are interested and are familiar with the procedure would you please consider doing a Peer review of Social model of disability, the review page is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Social model of disability/archive1. My request has elicited no reaction in the almost four days since I posted it. Roger (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Generally, I would be able to give more time to a review, but I'm faced with a migraine today. I would be happy to give it a copyedit though. Let me know if that will help. Cindamuse (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any and all contributions are welcome - at your own pace. WP:WikiProject Disability is quite new and very short of active participants. Given your background and experience I believe you would be a valued member. I hope you feel better soon. Roger (talk) 07:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 October 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silvia Manríquez[edit]

Do we really need source for any sentence in article about Silvia that I wrote?--78.0.218.232 (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi and thanks for contacting me. I don't see an article that you have written about Silvia, unless you are User:Mychele Trempetich and you are speaking about the Silvia Manríquez article. Presuming this to be the case, to answer your question, yes. The content about the subject is of a personal nature and amounts to original research. We cannot accept unsourced, original research about a living person. A citation must be attached, referencing a reliable source, or the content must be removed altogether. Additionally, it would be to your benefit to add the other roles for which this actress is known. Currently, notability, as well as the reliability of the current reference may be questioned by other editors. Any additional information you can provide will greatly support the article. As a side note, please make sure to sign in to your account before posting comments or editing so that others may know to whom to attribute your work. It is also against policy to edit from two different accounts, so be careful. Best regards, Cindamuse (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concordia Middle School[edit]

I noticed you redirected the article Concordia Middle School without any discussion. If you believe the article should be deleted and/or replaced with a redirect, please follow the procedure outlined in WP:AFD.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, the standard policy according to community consensus is to redirect non-notable elementary and middle schools to the district article. I recently sent several schools to AfD.[1] There were several editors that questioned why I sent non-notable elementary and middle schools to AfD. The discussions were closed quickly by administrators as a "speedy redirect". Cindamuse (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this were a non-notable middle school I would agree. However, it is one of the few school districts (if not the only) that has both a "junior high" and a "middle" school operating concurrently. That makes this particular school notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would lend to the notability of the school district, rather than the middle school. Cindamuse (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps so. Thanks for going through it by the numbers, we'll see what the discussion turns up.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • No problem, really. Kinda gets frustrating sometimes when there are so many different thoughts about what is or is not appropriate. For the most part, I just go with what the community deems the best option at the time. Never one to get too emotionally involved. I enjoy the collaboration and sincerely appreciate your feedback. Hope you have a great day/evening. Cindamuse (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merging siren articles[edit]

I have been trying to merge the ACA/ASC siren articles (can give a list if you want) into the big 'List of Sirens built by Alerting Communicators of America' article, as I feel it will be easier to have a big list article instead of numerous small articles for each siren. It would be less cluttered and easier to keep track of. Everytime I try to merge the articles, it just doesn't work for some reason. Can you help out? --JustInn014 (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure exactly what you mean. I see that you "redirected" an ACA page to the ASC page. Did you intend to do that? If you want to "merge", you will need to go into the history of the article and copy that to the article with which you wish to merge. Hope that helps, let me know specifics if you need additional assistance. For example, which articles you wish to merge into which articles. I've had a migraine today, so I haven't been online. If I'm not here later, the Help Desk may also be able to assist you, but hit me back just in case. Cindamuse (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After some thought, I would like to redirect the following articles into the big list article: ACA P-15 ASC T-135 (I think I tried this, however it only goes to a redirect page, not directly to the list article) ACA Cyclone ACA Hurricane ACA Allertor I have been ill this week, so I have not figured out how to get this done myself. --JustInn014 (talk) 05:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced speculation[edit]

I have every right to revert unsourced speculation from Wikipedia articles. I have read the article on spoilers and will abide by it. But, I am following the rules of WP:V, and those edits were unsourced. I thought that wikipedia wasn't a collection of plot updates. Rm994 (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You posted a message on my talk page asking me not to delete spoilers. As an editor following WP:V, I have every right to revert unsourced speculation from articles. The edits were made to Minor characters of Days of our Lives, and contained plot points not yet revealed on-screen. They were also unsourced. Now, I have read the guidelines, and will not flag them as spoilers and remove them as such, but ANY type of unsourced speculation should not be allowed. Thank you. Rm994 (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, yes. The {{uw-spoiler}} user notice was in regards to a posting left on another editor's talkpage that presented an inaccurate and inappropriate warning:
Do not add spoilers to articles, as you did to Minor characters of Days of our Lives. Arianna Hernadez has not died, and it is against policy to add spoilers. Please read wikipedia policy before making edits, as I see several warnings on this page. Further instances of not following rules will result in you being blocked from editing. Rm994 (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Plot updates and spoilers are entirely welcome on Wikipedia and should not be removed. (Sourcing is a separate issue and warning {{uw-unsourced1}} from the notice pertaining to deletion of spoilers {{uw-spoiler}}.) When working with subjects of fiction, only remove unsourced content if it is controversial, challenged, or defamatory to the real life counterpart. WP:UNSOURCED Attribution is important to consider in spoilers. A source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article. In the future, rather than deleting unsourced spoilers, simply add a {{citation needed|date=October 2010}} notation to alert the editor to provide a reference. Additionally, please refrain from stating that another editor will be blocked for their actions, outside of the official warning process. Thank you. Cindamuse (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

East Durham College[edit]

Hi - I'm new to wiki. I'm the Marketing and PR manager for East Durham College and want to ensure the info on the College is correct. Do I need to change the user name 'East Durham College'?

email is acm@eastdurham.ac.uk

Thanks - Alistair —Preceding unsigned comment added by East Durham College (talk • contribs) 15:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Frontiers with Sohaib[edit]

This popped up on my watchlist. You may be interested to know (if you didn't already) that an article on this subject was deleted per AfD in mid-2009: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional Frontiers with Sohaib. I have some doubts about G11 as the basis for a speedy, since I don't read the new page as an advertisement so much as a deficient attempt at a bona fide article about a real radio show. But it may qualify under some other criterion, such as G4, since there was no evidence of notability then, the new article doesn't give any evidence, and I still can't find any such evidence. Best, --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom[edit]

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

JamesBWatson (talk) 12:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offence taken[edit]

It's just that I've never been very good at the fiddly bits of adding references, etc. You'll find however that I've created many hundreds of articles over the last few years. Most of them were to do with niche subject areas in literature, the arts, history that have often been neglected, but you'll also find that 95% of my stubs have stood the test of time. I'm well aware of WP's notability rules and am not in the habit of flooding the place with useless entries. Thanks, etc. --Peripatetic (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I hope you're not seriously trying to justify creating unreferenced BLPs. If this is honestly the standard with which you edit on Wikipedia, you may want to take a step back and try focusing on quality, rather than quantity. It may satisfy you to create as many article stubs as you can, but it actually creates more work for others in reviewing and attempting to verify the stubs that you are writing, while you are moving on to the next article stub. In your opinion, you may not be in the habit of "flooding the place with useless entries", however, it is clear that you are in the habit of creating more work for others. Properly sourcing your articles is policy. Deliberately creating articles that lack sources, especially BLPs, is disruptive. No offense here either, but I hope that you would consider taking a look at how your lack of sourcing affects and hinders your fellow editors. Best regards, Cindamuse (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is a BLP? Wikipediatastic (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • BLP stands for "biographies of living persons". The applicable policy governing writing and sourcing BLPs can be found here. Don't hesitate to ask if you have any other questions. Have a great evening/morning, Cindamuse (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Totally agree with you btw. I have started adding references to User:Peripatetics contributions but I think they should be doing it as they go along. Wikipediatastic (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure that I agree with you. Patrick Marnham (to take one of several hundred examples) is a notable biographer who has written what is considered to be the standard biography in English of Georges Simenon who in turn is one of the major figures in detective fiction not just of the 20th century but of all time. And yet Marnham in the tenth year of Wikipedia's existence lacks an entry. (There's plenty more cases like him, as you'll certainly agree.) I tried to correct that. And I put in external links as well, for those curious to learn further. You may think that I am damaging quality. But I would contend that I am not merely adding quantity, but also improving the quality of coverage here. Would you rather that we go another five years without a Marnham entry, or that someone start a stub from which to expand and develop? Regards, etc. --Peripatetic (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think anyone's saying your entries lack value; just that it would be better if you could stick a couple of references in so that people unfamiliar will be able to know that Patrick Marnham is indeed an important write and not Peripatetic or his dad. If you're familiar with a subject finding a couple of references should be pretty easy. Wikipediatastic (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Peripatetic, I am not going to join you in rationalizing violation of Wikipedia policy. Your actions, rather than improving quality, are actually diminishing the quality of "coverage" on Wikipedia. Cindamuse (talk) 03:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cindamuse/Archive_6&oldid=1082528195"