User talk:Cindamuse/Archive 2

Grab some glory, and a barnstar

Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 14:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

All signed up! Cindamuse (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for signing up for the July Backlog Elimination Drive! The copyedit backlog stretches back two and a half years, all the way back to the beginning of 2008! We're really going to need all the help we can muster to get it down to a manageable number. We've ambitiously set a goal of clearing all of 2008 from the backlog this month. In order to do that, we're going to need more participants. Is there anyone that you can invite or ask to participate with you? If so, we're offering an award to the person who brings in the most referrals. Just notify ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! or Diannaa ^TALK of who your referrals are. Once again, thanks for your support! Diannaa ^TALK 14:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

George Clark (American football coach)

Cindamuse, thanks for your note. Good catch on the copy and paste in body of the George Clark (American football coach) article. You made a lot of good edits to improve the style. I did make a few changes though that essentially reverted portions of the article back to their form before your edits on June 14. First off, I reverted the lead, the only portion of the copy I really authored, to my last version. My version was more expansive and detailed. It's worth detailing exactly what teams Clark coached and played for and when, rather that just saying he was a sportsman. Second, please refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style for the proper use of hyphens and dashes. An en dash is needed for scores, records, and date ranges. Take note of the spacing needed as well. Third, I noticed you replaced the <br> tags in the infobox with <br />. Is there a reason to use the latter form? They both appear to render the same display. Oh, and on a side note, I thoroughly enjoyed reading about your run-in with the dude from Stryper. Good stuff.  :) Jweiss11 (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey there! I am fairly new to the wikification wikiproject. I was instructed to replace html tags with wiki markup. I didn't know about the preferred use of en dashes. I just saw the html code and reverted. Thanks for letting me know. And sorry for making you go through the work of reverting. (What is the easiest way to add dashes?) Regarding the breaks, the latter form is what resulted from using the wiki editing console. I thought it a bit redundant, but followed through as instructed. No harm no foul.

Regarding the lede. In compliance with the MOS instructions on writing the lede, the goal was to provide a concise summary of the article, rather than expansive and detailed. Please take no offense here. The intro is a bit over-detailed and difficult to follow. It should provide a glimpse of what can be found in the body of the article. It should be able to draw the neophyte into the article rather than confuse them with details that are not easily understood. The current version provides details, but fails to inform the reader why the subject (Clark) is significant. The identity of the character and his 40-year career in football has become lost in the text. I had also removed wikilinks to commonly understood terminology. There are separate instructions regarding compliance for opening paragraphs for biographies here. I won't revert the lede. Life is too short. ;)

And regarding Stryper? That's just Oz. He married a former friend and business associate. He doesn't really understand Wikipedia. To him, it's just another soapbox. He essentially asserts ownership of his own page, as well as Annie's or anything else he is involved in. Conflict of interest is not in his vocabulary. I certainly didn't want him blocked. I wish him no harm. I was just tired of the ignorance and animosity. It's just sad. Cindamuse (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Adeline Knapp Assessment

Hi, you can relist the article when you think it's ready and a user will check against the B-Class criteria. Hekerui (talk) 08:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The persondata were fine, I made minor tweaks. You can remove issue templates like the one about the lead yourself when the issue is addressed. Best Hekerui (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I merely sorted the categories by alphabet. Hekerui (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

More Adeline Knapp

Hi, thanks for the great additions to the Adeline Knapp article. The family research and corrections are a great improvement, and I appreciate your extensive documentation about the Charles Knapp confusion. The anti-suffrage material is also extremely interesting. I do have a few questions about the best way to incorporate that material, however, that I'd like to raise here.

Mainly, I'm a little confused about the restoration of some anti-suffrage material as the second paragraph of the lead. I had earlier moved this same paragraph into the anti suffrage section (which I created). You (perhaps thinking it was deleted rather than moved--I probably should have explained) seem to have moved it back to the lead, apparently on the grounds that the lead became too short. I don't have any strong opinion about what is the optimal length of a lead, but at the very least there is now a problem of duplication.

I am not really convinced that Knapp's anti-suffrage activities justify such powerful emphasis in the lead. Also, there are some areas where the discussion of Knapp's anti-suffrage activities would benefit from further clarification. In particular, the comment that she "was closely aligned with the New York State Association Opposed to the Extension of Suffrage to Women." I'm not sure what "closely aligned" means, exactly, and the footnote points to a collection of essays published after her death in which one of her essays was reprinted--hardly a demonstration of her "close alignment" in my view. There is not much discussion of what her actual arguments against woman suffrage were. I did look up several of her articles on the topic and found them to be mainly questioning assumptions made by the suffragists, such as the idea that women would economically benefit from suffrage. It would be helpful to see more references identifying her anti-suffrage publications and actions, and some discussion of her positions. It seems to me there are some really interesting questions about how she could balance these views with her reputation as a socialist reformer.

Since there has been very little discussion of Knapp outside of the Charlotte Perkins Gilman camp, it's really an open question how she should be presented in Wikipedia. It's likely she won't be well understood for a while yet. In the meantime, it would be helpful for this article to remain as neutral as possible, so that additional material, as it becomes available, will not be closed out by a focus on particular topics.--Icuc2 (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! This past week, I submitted the article for initial assessment. I received feedback indicating that the lead was too short. Remarks indicated that the lead did not sufficiently summarize the article. The direction I was given was to present the lead as a summary of material contained within the article itself, while defining why the subject of the article is significant. I restored the second paragraph under that direction, because the paragraph accurately summarized a portion of the content within the article, while presenting why the subject is significant. (Duplication is not an issue when presented in the lead.) I then informed the assessor that while the article is under construction, additional information would be later addressed and included in summary of the article. At that point, tags were removed and I was encouraged to submit the article again for "B class" assessment, once it was ready.

Wikipedia:Lead_section#Introductory_text

Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Lead_section

Regarding Knapp's anti-suffrage activities:

My research has shown significant activities speaking out against woman's suffrage, specifically during the last ten years of her life. While the reference presents the whole, further research reveals that the compilation is a selected collection of literature previously published by the Association. Two contributions made by Knapp are included in the compilation, i.e., the "ballot" speech made before the U.S. Congress in 1908 and the "problem of suffrage" article printed by the Association in 1899. The close alignment with the National Association in New York is evidenced through Knapp's written articles and speeches published by the Association, as well as her representation before the New York Senate and the U.S. Congress in regards to the opposition of woman's suffrage. I agree with your overall consensus that there is much more information, along with clarification could be included in this article.

http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3A%22Knapp%2C+Adeline%2C%22&qt=hot_author

Regarding her "reputation as a socialist reformer:"

I've found no documentation supporting the claim that she was a socialist. Where did you see this? Or was this a typo? As far as social reform, I would support that she was involved in the reform movement, albeit on the side of opposition, which would accurately be termed as the reactionary movement. And as such, much of her literature regarding woman's suffrage presents a response to reform; a defense of the status quo rather than measured offense. The "questioning of the assumptions of the suffragists," that you mentioned. I believe there could be some elaboration on this within the article.

Regarding Knapp's relationship with Gilman:

When researching the personal life of Knapp during the late 1800s, many references are found regarding Gilman, most often sourced directly to articles written by Gilman herself. However, when researching Knapp's professional life and contributions, little reference is made regarding Gilman. I believe Knapp and Gilman were in a relationship for approximately five years. However, Knapp had been an author and journalist for well over 30 years. Knapp made significant contributions in journalism, education, and the anti-suffrage movement wholly independent of Gilman. To state that Knapp is "mostly remembered" for her relationship with Gilman is inaccurate. Additionally, it is a subjective statement that cannot be supported or measured.

As far as how to present Knapp within the context of Wikipedia? I'm not quite sure what you mean in stating that the article should remain "neutral." I suppose it's semantics. I think we should simply present her life — devoid of opinion, supposition, and subjection — and let the reader come to their own conclusions. Wikipedia is a "live" document; constantly changing. When additional material comes to light, it should be included within the article, as appropriate. In my opinion, the current prose does not limit or hinder inclusions, but rather invites them.

On a final note, I agree that there is much more information that could be included within this article. Additionally, I agree that she likely won't be well understood for a while yet. And in my opinion, less so, as seen landing on the descending side of the woman's suffrage argument. Cindamuse (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your responses to my comments; thought I'd add a few points here. If you'd like to move this discussion at some point to the article talk page that's also ok with me.

Basically, I don't disagree with any of your comments above, though I doubt whether repeating a substantial section of text, even if not a violation of Wikipedia rules, is good writing style. I feel it is something that should be addressed at some point, though it may be better to wait a bit. I'm going to add a bit more material about Knapp's social reform activities ("socialist reformer" was Joaquin Miller's apparently joking phrase, which you're right to question, but she was certainly an active "social reformer").

I do want to reiterate my concerns about trying to maintain neutrality in this article. It's not just semantic: it seems to me it shouldn't be quite so evident, in reading the article, that you find Knapp's anti-suffrage position wrong and even distasteful. "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view," according to Wikipedia:NPOV. Though I don't mind some POV now and then, I really do feel that Knapp should get a proper hearing. Perhaps I should mention that I originally became interested in her through Yone Noguchi, a young Japanese immigrant writer whom she energetically supported, and to whom she gave generally good advice. She may have opposed Chinese immigration, as you say some source says some other source says, but I haven't yet seen evidence of the supposed fear of foreigners she "may have helped cultivate" in Gilman.

"To state that Knapp is 'mostly remembered' for her relationship with Gilman is inaccurate," you say, but I think it's indisputable that most of the references to Knapp in recent decades have been in the context of books about Gilman. There is not yet even one substantial article, let alone a book, on Knapp, while there are dozens of books and hundreds of articles about Gilman. Can Knapp really get a fair hearing in this context? Sure, there are other references to Knapp, in the context of her activities in the Philippines and Hawaii, but they add up to only a few very selective glimpses of her life. Now, on the one hand, these glimpses, to some extent are Adeline Knapp, in the sense that Wikipedia approves (i.e. Knapp as seen by "reliable sources"). On the other hand, there's a lot that could be done by going back further and actually looking at primary materials. I'd like to see this happen, and the article can encourage people to do it by maintaining an open, neutral tone and giving as broad a view as possible.

I've just put together a couple of sections about some of Knapp's reform activities and environmentalism which I hope will show a more sympathetic side. (Hopefully will add a bit more there in the future). I've also been looking at the anti-suffrage pieces, and, while I admit they are reactionary, as you say, I do have some question about whether the adverb "strongly" is really justified in characterizing her position (she seems rather fatalistic that suffrage will pass in California in one). Also, whether and to what extent was she actively involved with the anti-suffrage organizations who used her writings in their pamphlets (in some cases after her death). If there is going to be so much emphasis on anti-suffrage in the article, I hope there can be some description of her actual arguments in specific cases and how these changed over time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icuc2 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I do want to reiterate my concerns about trying to maintain neutrality in this article. It's not just semantic: it seems to me it shouldn't be quite so evident, in reading the article, that you find Knapp's anti-suffrage position wrong and even distasteful. "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view," according to Wikipedia:NPOV.

I honestly have formed no opinion one way or the other regarding Knapp or her anti-suffrage message. I am not personally involved in this issue other than writing and editing in compliance with WP policy. I'm not interested in the subject on any level outside of that task. As I stated previously, "I think we [editors] should simply present her life — devoid of opinion, supposition, and subjection — and let the reader come to their own conclusions." This statement defines neutrality, no need to reiterate.

She may have opposed Chinese immigration, as you say some source says some other source says, but I haven't yet seen evidence of the supposed fear of foreigners she "may have helped cultivate" in Gilman.

Please understand, this is not a statement that "I say." You are not reading my personal opinion, but statements made by Knapp's contemporaries, properly sourced.

I must mention that it appears that you have a point of view that differs from her contemporaries. While you may not have "seen evidence," her contemporaries apparently did and therefore, they made the statement as presented in Gilman's biography. If you find content personally objectionable, by all means, do some research and offer additional content. Make sure not to arbitrarily delete content that is properly sourced, just because you disagree with it. Keep in mind that WP is not the place for censorship.

Again, my only interest in Knapp is writing and editing the article. I'm not personally involved. I don't "watch" the page. I worked on the article as requested through the Wikiproject, then I moved on to the next article. I do what I can and then let others chime in. In all things, please enjoy your day! Cindamuse (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Just wanted to let you know I'm planning to make a few corrections as noted on Talk:Adeline_Knapp. I'm also going to delete the duplicated text in the lead. The lead will need to be reconsidered, as it now needs to summarize a considerably longer article.

I'm also planning to address the race issue with a longer treatment. I'm not sure what you mean by my disagreement with Knapp's contemporaries: I believe the writers who have made comments about Knapp's racism are recent literary critics, beginning with Gary Sharnhorst in the article cited by Cynthia Davis, which I was finally able to locate (as well as Knapp's nasty short story which is its subject). The original article only deals with Knapp's anti-Chinese views, but other critics seem to take this as evidence of anti-Asian or anti-foreign views. I haven't seen any references to Knapp's contemporaries so I'm not sure how I can be disagreeing with them.

Incidentally, if you've "moved on" please don't feel obligated to respond; I just didn't want to start changing around your text without some explanation. Thanks again for your contributions to the page.--Icuc2 (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where you are located, but here in Seattle, it is morning. So, good morning to you! I welcome your changes and look forward to reading them. Do what makes you feel comfortable. I think your goals in editing will only serve to enhance the article. C'est la vie. Don't hold back because you think I'm gonna come at you with a frypan. LOL It's cool, really. Regarding the disagreement with Knapp's contemporaries, I think it was in the Davis stuff. There was a presentation of dinner conversation between the contemporaries of Knapp and Gilman regarding her fear of immigrants. Also, the remark about the fear of immigrants being fostered by Knapp was in the Davis book. I think she called it xenophobia. I could be off in the spelling. Just want to reiterate that any sentiment you may read in the article either advocating or dismissing the ideals of Knapp are not mine. And yes, I am swamped a bit right now with life. That and migraine headaches make for ugly mornings. Hope you have a great day. Cindamuse (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. -- œ^™ 16:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Plural wikilinks

Thanks for the note regarding the proper way to link plurals in wikilinks, as indicated on the edit history of Stryper. I appreciate the heads up. Every little bit helps. ;) Cindamuse (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. It was one of the first tricks I learned and I'm glad to pass it on. You helped improve the article. Thanks for that! --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Backlog Elimination Drive Has Begun

Hello, I just wanted to take a moment and announce that the July 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. Enjoy! ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Elaine Hamilton-O'Neal

Thank-you very much for the ongoing improvements to the Elaine Hamilton article! It's so exciting to watch it blossom! Do you have any access to images of the later, "action painting" works? There are some at the MarylandArtSource article, and one auction image (Tajan, Paris) to be found at artnet and askart dots com, but I'm not sure it's permissible to use them. Thanks again! MdArtLover (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm actually in the process of requesting permission from the various individuals that maintain copyright. Elaine died this past March, with her last interview published in the Baltimore Magazine November 2009. I would really like to have permission to use the photo of her. I will try to gain access to her artwork as well. My participation is through the Guild of Copy Editors Elimination Drive. Cindamuse (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I know you're still in the process of redoing the article, but, when you get around to it, maybe you could put the Biennale de Menton First Prize under "Awards" (although the Menton Biennale itself certainly does belong under "Multiple-Artist Exhibitions". MdArtLover (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks so much for your help. Please don't hesitate to mention anything else. Cindamuse (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token 945b8d8049cf3d924a81eaac11e37065

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Bonjour

in the edit summaries of my edits to the ashley cooper, i put links to wp:mos which has guidance on images, references and everything else and wp:external links which has guidance on external links. there's a tool called reflinks which you can use for references: [1] Tom B (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. I've read through the MOS and still can't seem to find a reference that supports or indicates a required a size for images. The MOS image guideline that I found simply indicates no greater than 500px tall and 400px wide, with lead images no greater than 300px wide. I also found a requirement for image alt references that I didn't know about and have not used. I've also not been approached about omitting said alt reference, so I'm wondering if others know something that I don't know about.

An example regarding citations is linked here, where:

The use of citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required, but the use of <ref></ref> tags is encouraged.

Based on this "encouragement," I used the tags. Did I read it wrong or misunderstand? Regardless, thanks for the reflinks tool. I will definitely check it out.

Another example is found here, that states that citations can be presented within articles in one of five ways. Editors are free to use any method; no method is preferred over another, though the use of embedded links for inline citations is not considered best practice and is not found in featured articles. Some articles use a combination of general references, citations in footnotes and shortened notes.

I apologize for being such a bugaboo. I really want to improve my editing, but I keep finding conflicting assessments. I certainly don't want to make extra work for an an individual assessing the article. It appears to me that edits are rather subjective, based on personal preference of the editor assessing articles rather than MOS. Honestly, the inconsistency is a bit confusing. My goal is consistency and compliance with WP:MOS. I'm finding that adherence to the MOS changes from one assessor to the next. I am looking for consistency and advice on how to improve the articles that I write, edit, and format. Based on the information above, can you provide advice that would lead to assignment of a different quality scale? What additional work is needed on the two articles? Thanks for your assistance. Your work is appreciated. Cindamuse (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As you say, there isn't a required size for images, which is why i tend to remove all px's and allow images to show at the default size of 220px (recently increased from 180px). this makes wikitext text simpler and avoids large or small images. My understanding is that you don't put a px, and force an image to a size different from the default, unless it is a diagram that needs to be bigger or for another reason - there are a few reasons why one might need to do this listed in the image section of the wp:MOS.

Alt text is a bit of minefield at the moment. it used to be a requirement for featured articles but that's stopped now. you can follow developments, i'm guessing, at the wp:alt page.

References. the ref tags are good to use. you're right that cite web or any other citation style isn't required, the main thing is to be consistent through the article, but to get to good article status, you need to put the publisher and accessdate information for each weblink reference, and cite web is a good way to do this.

Assessment. I assessed Shaftesbury as B, no editor can assess it as a good article unless it's taken to the wp:good article nomination process. There is a list of criteria to get an article to B-class, one of the main things normally missing from is references e.g. the Elaine article only has a couple of references in the last section.

if you want to reply, please can you do that on my talkpage. i almost didn't see your reply as i don't alway follow others talkpages, kind regards Tom B (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Lobert COI

Cindy, just to let you know of my post on the Lobert talk page, copied below:

I came here from the WP:COIN. I am a neutral, experienced editor. Cindy, the WP:COI policy is not limited to current connections with a subject, but all connections with a subject. Since you have self-declared that you are a former officer of the organization that Lobert founded, you have a conflict of interest and should refrain from editing on this subject. You may want to review the applicable policies. Any material that you believe should be in the article can be posted here, to the talk page where neutral editors can review it and then one of them will post it if appropriate. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 09:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

My involvement in editing this article has been addressed through the Head of Reader Relations for the Wikimedia Foundation. I have exercised care and caution in editing articles related to previous affiliations. My participation in editing this article has been addressed and shown to be neutral. I have refrained from promoting the organization. I have avoided violating relevant policies and guidelines, neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography. The previous conflict of interest has been disclosed. The current controversy is based on previously addressed edits. As such, my participation in editing this article is permitted, when additions are presented and backed up with reliable citations based on secondary sources. Cindamuse (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Mlpearc response to your proposal

I have responded to your questions Here Mlpearc powwow 03:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I added the sections and will wait to see what happens. Cindamuse (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As anyone can see not must recent activity on this page. I would give it a couple days and if there's no responce to your proposal then just go ahead and make the changes you want per Wikipedia:Be bold, you can always refer back to this and argue that you posted your proposal and there was no interest. Mlpearc powwow 06:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'll keep that in mind. I want to make sure I have my ducks in a row, so to speak. I will be deleting links to several organizations. I don't want a lot of people mad at me. But the list of NGOs just keeps growing and is overtaking the article. At another time, I want to address the trivia within the article as well, but I'll start with one thing at a time. I appreciate your help. Cindamuse (talk) 06:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I was looking through my archives and came across your post and was just wondering if all went well with your proposal, I see there was no response, have you gone ahead and made your changes ? Mlpearc powwow 03:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey there! Yeah. With something like 137 watchers, there was no response. Honestly, I think most people that actively watch it are those that support human trafficking. Sad, but true. I took your advice. I took a deep breath and decided to be bold. It felt pretty good. You created a monster. Have a great day! Cindamuse (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL, very good, I'm glad it all worked out, stop by and say hi once in a while Cheers Mlpearc powwow 04:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Human Trafficking

Hi. Well first of all, if you feel it shouldn't be there, be bold and simply remove the information. If you want to link to your talkpage post, you can do that in the edit summary. If anyone disagrees, they will be more likely to discuss it that way. The article isn't edit-protected, and there are very few pages that do require some sort of consensus before they are edited (anything to do with Scientology is one that comes to mind), so Just Do It! :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, cool. Relevant essays, guidelines, etc, that might help in case anyone does dispute your edits are:

• Wikipedia:Consensus
• Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
• Wikipedia:Editor assistance
• Wikipedia:Third opinion
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment
• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

And a few other pages that are linked to within the above. :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I've read those thoroughly just this morning. ;) Thanks. Cindamuse (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Wimborne St Giles Ricky Ricardo John Manners, 8th Earl of Rutland Cropley Ashley-Cooper, 6th Earl of Shaftesbury Red colobus Napier Sturt, 3rd Baron Alington Tracy Ferrie Clara Bryant Crime in Iran Men of Valor Prostitution in Ecuador Sacred Warrior Convention against Transnational Organized Crime Microsoft Office v. X Gary Flandro Polaris Project Janna Levin Lacy J. Dalton Lord Lieutenant of Dorset

Cleanup Privilege Ibiza Abby Joseph Cohen Grace Lee Boggs Merge Assumption-based planning The District, Columbia, Missouri Human trafficking in Estonia Add Sources The Roxx Regime Demos Sex worker Radium Wikify Ricky Sinz Human trafficking in Iran Fluid power Expand Human rights in Romania Industrial Relations Act 1971 Ethel Mertz

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) 13:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Rachel Lloyd

I believe that the preblank placed an inordinate on her early life, and I can see how that could cause BLP issues. However, the postblank blanked too many details, effectively whitewashing her profile. There is a conflict of interest, but I think a compromise can be reached. bibliomaniac15 02:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It does not appear that MeditationSpace was warned on her talkpage. I do not think a new user would necessarily know to immediately consult the article talk page. Because you're a bit clearer on this than me, the first step would be to leave a personal note on their talk referring them to the discussion page and the issue behind their edits. bibliomaniac15 21:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Defaultsort

You got the default system correct, with the exception that British nobility are usually sorted by their title first, then their name. The press usually just mentions them as "the Duke of xxx", "Earl of xxx". etc. Often their actual names are not even mentioned and are not particularly good search terms. Dimadick (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Geograph

You have a TUSC token already. So will you please: upload Geograph images to the Commons using geograph_org2commons.php and place each one in useful categories. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I use the Free Image Search Tool. While I registered for the TUSC account, this process has never worked for me. It indicates that verification failed. I've looked in various places but have found no direction for further assistance. If you can direct me, that would be great. Cindamuse (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I registered another password and it still doesn't work. I keep getting the "verification failed" notice. Cindamuse (talk) 03:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong project! Try again with: Language=commons, Project=wikimedia. (The registration procedure could be more helpful.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I registered using Language=commons, Project=wikimedia. However, I still received a "verification failed" notice. Cindamuse (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No idea what happened. After creating the "I am proud owner" message, did you specify a TUSC password? (Despite what it says, this can be the same as your Commons password). — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

After creating the "I am a proud owner" message, I'm directed to the User page * on Wikimedia. I wouldn't know where to specify a TUSC password there. I went through the process again to no avail. Cindamuse (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Re * above: surely you mean your user_talk page. To create that "I am a proud owner" message, you clicked on a "Click me!" button in Step 2 of http://toolserver.org/~magnus/tusc.php . (Below that button do you see the words "come back here" and a password entry box?) When I click on that button, it opens the Commons User_talk page in a new tab. Having created the message I simply return to the tab with the "Click me!" button and enter the password. If it is all happening in one tab for you, simply hit your browser's back button until you get to the page with the "Click me!" button. Ignore what it says about not using your Commons password - it is a lot simpler if you do use the same password and it is accepted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Dang, if that doesn't work! You are the bomb, Mr. Haworth. I appreciate your help with this beyond words. I never saw the "Come back here" message. But when I followed your instructions to the letter, it did exactly as you explained. Don't mind me, I'm crying tears of joy now. I'm probably gonna go slap happy uploading images from that Geograph website. And I also know how to categorize images too. Dang, if you ain't good. Cindamuse (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Cats

There already exists commons:Category:Wimborne St Giles so will you please go through these uploads and add each one to appropriate categories. The Rebbe has already been done! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

As a newbie uploading images, please forgive me. I have no idea where to find categories or what you are talking about. What is a Rebbe? Cindamuse (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I took another look and figured out what "Rebbe" referred to. I used it as a reference to add categories to the images I uploaded. I think I did it accurately, but I would appreciate it if you would just double check and verify that it is correct. Thanks. Cindamuse (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

All OK but I have added more to: commons:File:Wimborne St Giles Church Tower and Almshouses.jpg, commons:File:Stable yard St Giles Park.jpg, commons:File:St Giles House and stable yard, St Giles Estate.jpg and commons:File:Rockbourne Manor Farm.jpg. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I appreciate your help. Cindamuse (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token 4d9b3a82333a9be027fefc4060eef81b

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

GOCE Newsletter

GOCE July 2010 backlog elimination drive chart Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive! We have now passed the halfway point, so here's an update. Progress Report - Progress toward the targets has been good. 751 articles out of the approximately 1,600 we would like to get completed by the end of the month were done by July 15, so we will be very close to meeting the target for volume. However, we would like to clear all of the 2008 articles from the backlog, and there are still 892 left to do. Please consider choosing one of these older articles when looking for something to copy edit. If we focus our firepower we can completely wipe out 2008 from the queue. Participation Report - 95 people signed up for the July drive. This is a great result compared to May, when we had 36. However, in May only one person that signed up didn't do any copy edits, and in July only 59 of the 95 have posted any copy edits on the big board. The task may seem insurmountable but please remember that if all 95 participants copy edit just one article a day from now until the end of the month, we will eliminate 1,300 more articles from the backlog. So please consider participating at whatever level you can! All contributions are appreciated. This newsletter was prepared for the GOCE by Diannaa (Talk), S Masters (talk), and The Raptor Let's talk.

Proper use of St or St. Vincent

I'm sorry I read the page and couldn't see where the difference between St. and St was referenced. I used St. because that was the way it was most commonly referenced in the literature. I'm happy to make the changes (or for you to make them) but I cannot find the section that gives me the guidelines. Thanks, Corneredmouse (talk) 09:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, Corneredmouse, I wouldn't worry about it. You're doing a great job on the article. I'm looking forward to seeing the new rating you'll get after the assessment. I just provided that particular reference regarding the use of St Vincent within the article. About St or St., review WP:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES. When the subject of an article holds strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the article should be written using the English of that nation.

This article about a British peer, should be written using British English. Abbreviations in British English do not use full stops/periods. Contractions, where the final letter is present, are often written in British English without full stops/periods (Mr, Mrs, Dr, St, Ave). British English shares this convention with the French: Mlle, Mme, Dr, Ste, but M. for Monsieur. In American and Canadian English, abbreviations like St., Ave., Mr., Mrs., Ms., Dr., and Jr., always require periods. While it is covered in the MOS, in my opinion, it is not clearly defined. I don't think everybody is going to be familiar with commonalities and differences of American English and British English. In all things, I would just make sure to simply be consistent in the article itself. ; ) Cindamuse (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm going to make the changes today. Thanks for the advice. All the best, Corneredmouse (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Lou Fellingham

Hi cindamuse, great work on the Lou Fellingham article. I created it in the first place and heavily modified it over the years but you have worked it brilliantly, so great work. Could you have a go at Phatfish too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.152.16.187 (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I had never heard of Lou or this band before, but came across it through an assignment with the Guild of Copy Editors. It was one of my first assignments. And sure, I will take a look at the Phatfish article. I have to be honest though, I started working on the Lou Fellingham article and got sidetracked (swamped). The Collaborations section was kinda left midstream, so I need to get back to that as well. You are just the nudge I needed to get working on it again. Have a great day. Cindamuse (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I will have to get to following the current elimination project I am working on. Kinda swamped right now. ACK! ; ) Cindamuse (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)