User talk:Cindamuse/Archive 41
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Cindamuse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 35 | ← | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 |
This Month in GLAM: February 2014
| ||||||
This Month in GLAM: February 2014
| ||||||
Is your comment that starts off "While the desire to bring about a solution to the concerns" an "oppose" or a "comment"? Please clarify. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014
- Traffic report: Brinksmen on the brink
- Discussion report: Four paragraph lead, indefinitely blocked IPs, editor reviews broken?
- Featured content: Full speed ahead for the WikiCup
- WikiProject report: Article Rescue Squadron
Deleted Wikipage- follow up
Hi Cindy- I have recently created a page David House Agency, which you deleted due having “copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder”. I would like to send you the revised version for you to proofread OR I could open the page up again without the copyright section(s). My intention is to create a neutral, transparent and informative wiki site for the company. I now understand how citing the agency’s website is a copyright issue. I will be more mindful with future contributions. Please advise on how to proceed. Once again, thanks for your assistance and guidance through Wikipedia. Best, Dhala. Dhala1 (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Dhala! The concern is not related to citing the agency's website. The concern is the violation of US Copyright law and Wikipedia policy in using material protected by the owners of the work. I would recommend drafting an article in a subpage of your userspace, for example at User:Dhala1/David House Agency. Please make sure to use your own words in creating the article. You should also review the notability guidelines for organizations. When you believe that it may be ready, please submit it for review to the Articles for Creation team. Once it meets the minimum guidelines to forgo speedy deletion, a team member will move it to the mainspace. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 07:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Cindy, I have created the page as you have suggested: User:Dhala1/David House Agency and have submitted it for review to the Articles for Creation team. I would greatly appreciate any input or further assistance in this process. Best, Dhala Dhala1 (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Block on User:PetrSergeev
Hello Cindamuse! You placed a block on the account of user PetrSergeev, using the NOTHERE justification. The user in question is one of my students, who was tasked with creating a Wikipedia entry on a subject of note as a project. I cannot see his contribution history, but I would posit that he acted in good faith to try to conform to Wikipedia guidelines. He may have acted in a non-constructive manner because of ignorance or anxiety (about receiving a bad grade), but not in malice. Would you consider lifting his ban? I will instruct him on iterating content in the sandbox before submitting. JediLibrarian (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- I am not inclined to lift the block placed on this individual's editing privileges. Lack of malice aside, non-constructive edits, ignorance, or anxiety is no excuse to disrupt the project. This editor was willfully and highly disruptive, repeatedly creating inappropriate articles under different titles in an attempt to evade detection. In accordance with policy, the individual has been blocked. That said, there is a process for requesting a lift, instructions of which are located on his talk page. I would recommend that the individual review the reasons for which he was blocked, then make a request accordingly. He needs to make the request. If you make the request, it will be quickly declined. The individual needs to convince administrators that he understands the reasons for which he was blocked, then provide details of his future involvement in the project. In all honesty, I don't foresee a lift of the block based on the willful disregard of policies and guidelines thus far. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 00:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear Cindamuse, Earlier tonight you deleted my article Removing Sexism and Racism from Primary School Readers in the United States for lack of context. Okay, but how can I access what I already wrote (so I don't have to rewrite it all) and edit it to add the requested information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SDFeminist2.0 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Hello Cindy, Earlier this evening you deleted my article Removing Sexism and Racism from Primary School Readers in the United States for a lack of context. I'd like to edit my article to add the requested content. How do I do that? SDFeminist2.0 (talk) 08:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi there! thanks for contacting me. I've gone ahead and userfied the article to User:SDFeminist2.0/Removing Sexism and Racism from Primary School Readers in the United States. Please make sure to review the Manual of Style and guidelines pertaining to reliable sources and notability. It is also very important to review the policy pertaining to original research. In essence, the article appears to present "original research", i.e., "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources". At this point, the context of the article is unclear. Is it a book? organization? essay? concept? theory? In all sincerity, the article lacks cohesion which would allow readers to identify the subject. I recommend working on the article in your userspace and when you are done with it, submit it to the Articles for Creation team. Once it meets the minimum requirements for inclusion, a member of the AFC team will move it to the mainspace. If you have questions or need further assistance, please feel free to contact me anytime. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 08:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, I made a response to you, but I'm not sure where it went. To my Talk Page? In short, what do I need to do to make my article acceptable and uploaded to Wikipedia where the information can be shared with others? SDFeminist2.0 (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- In order to move this to the mainspace, we need to resolve the issues identified with this article. I've given guidance in my previous response above. At this point, the best that I am able to discern is that we have an essay. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not the place for original research or essays. Please take the time to read through the links I've provided and work to address the specific concerns. At this point, your draft does not reflect an encyclopedic article. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 01:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but I strongly disagree. I have looked at the Manual of Style and I feel that my writing style is neutral, informative, grammatical, and easy to read. I have looked at Reliable Sources and I would direct you to the 13 citations at the end of my article. Only one is a personal recollection, and that was by one of the people who actually made the historical accomplishment I am trying to document and share. I believe a first-person account is usually considered a reliable source. The subject IS notable in that it brought about a huge cultural change in our society. As for original research, I have only stated facts and given credible citations for each statement. I am not promoting an opinion or a position -- I am stating facts about an important struggle for equality in American History that is about to disappear into the mists of history because it is not well documented. I have documented all that I have been able to discover in four months of research. There is no doubt that there is more information on this subject to include, but I'm not looking to write a book here. It is my hope that others will add information when they find this article exists. Isn't that part of the beauty of Wikipedia? I am asking you to show this article to some other administrators and see how they read the piece. Please let me know what will happen next. SDFeminist2.0 (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, your writing style, while lacking in neutrality, is informative and grammatically correct. The layout and formatting needs a cleanup. And yes, you've provided a bibliography of the sources you've used to write your essay. All that said, the article is still an essay. Please understand that while your passion and desire to present this information is admirable, Wikipedia is not a host for this type of material. The encyclopedia is not the place to promote a cause or ideal or inform readers of a particular view or assessment of a subject. At this point, you are welcome to submit the article for review to the Articles for Creation team. However, if the article is moved to the mainspace in its current condition, it will be placed for community deletion discussion. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 03:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- I will revise again and we will see.SDFeminist2.0 (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have updated this article and I hope it can now be put in the public space. I need help changing the title. I'd appreciate your help with that. I left a message in the box "Edit summary" below the article. SDFeminist2.0 (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Please respond. Can my article more forward? SDFeminist2.0 (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nothing has really changed since my initial response, outside of the format and removing a section. There is very little improvement compared to the first version of the article. In essence, we have a promotional report piece attempting to masquerade as an encyclopedic article. We have an unremarkable chapter of a national organization presenting a background essay about one of their initiatives or projects. This is simply not encyclopedia material. When all is said and done, it's still an essay. At this point, I recommend that you host this content on the San Diego NOW website or a personal blog, of sorts. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 02:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, your writing style, while lacking in neutrality, is informative and grammatically correct. The layout and formatting needs a cleanup. And yes, you've provided a bibliography of the sources you've used to write your essay. All that said, the article is still an essay. Please understand that while your passion and desire to present this information is admirable, Wikipedia is not a host for this type of material. The encyclopedia is not the place to promote a cause or ideal or inform readers of a particular view or assessment of a subject. At this point, you are welcome to submit the article for review to the Articles for Creation team. However, if the article is moved to the mainspace in its current condition, it will be placed for community deletion discussion. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 03:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but I strongly disagree. I have looked at the Manual of Style and I feel that my writing style is neutral, informative, grammatical, and easy to read. I have looked at Reliable Sources and I would direct you to the 13 citations at the end of my article. Only one is a personal recollection, and that was by one of the people who actually made the historical accomplishment I am trying to document and share. I believe a first-person account is usually considered a reliable source. The subject IS notable in that it brought about a huge cultural change in our society. As for original research, I have only stated facts and given credible citations for each statement. I am not promoting an opinion or a position -- I am stating facts about an important struggle for equality in American History that is about to disappear into the mists of history because it is not well documented. I have documented all that I have been able to discover in four months of research. There is no doubt that there is more information on this subject to include, but I'm not looking to write a book here. It is my hope that others will add information when they find this article exists. Isn't that part of the beauty of Wikipedia? I am asking you to show this article to some other administrators and see how they read the piece. Please let me know what will happen next. SDFeminist2.0 (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- In order to move this to the mainspace, we need to resolve the issues identified with this article. I've given guidance in my previous response above. At this point, the best that I am able to discern is that we have an essay. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not the place for original research or essays. Please take the time to read through the links I've provided and work to address the specific concerns. At this point, your draft does not reflect an encyclopedic article. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 01:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, I made a response to you, but I'm not sure where it went. To my Talk Page? In short, what do I need to do to make my article acceptable and uploaded to Wikipedia where the information can be shared with others? SDFeminist2.0 (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 March 2014
- Traffic report: War and awards
- Featured content: Ukraine burns
- WikiProject report: Russian WikiProject Entomology
Why don't you let me create the album's page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpmbsgam (talk • contribs) 02:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for contacting me. I protected this page due to repeated recreations. In essence, a community discussion took place which resulted in consensus to redirect this article to the existing section within the Cher Lloyd article. Overall, notability is not yet established in accordance with the general notability guidelines or the topical notability guidelines for albums. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 02:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Deletion of Farhad Shahnawaz
Hello, i am the creator of the page called "Farhad Shahnawaz" which was deleted recently. I respect the deletion as i feel there was something wrong with the page. As i am New to writing articles on Wiki, Can you please guide me in completing the article?Can you please throw some light on Where i went wrong? I appreciate the efforts and time you have spent on my page.Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footfallexperts (talk • contribs) 16:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- This article was deleted following a community discussion, which resulted in consensus stating that notability for the subject has not yet been established. When we create articles on Wikipedia, we are required to establish notability for the subject, verified through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The topical notability guidelines for models or actors may be found at WP:CREATIVE. In addition to these guidelines, I would recommend reading the specific information which will help in identifying reliable and independent sources. Unfortunately, until such time as notability can be established, this article may not be retained in the encyclopedia. If you have additional questions, please feel free to contact me again, Cindy(talk) 22:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
DYK for Saddle Ridge Hoard
 | On 18 March 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Saddle Ridge Hoard, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Saddle Ridge Hoard (pictured) of Gold Country in California is believed to be the biggest hoard of gold coins ever unearthed in the United States? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Saddle Ridge Hoard. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
The DYK project (nominate) 00:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your tip/reminder. Thank you.
Thank you for your message re remembering to use the edit field to keep track of what edits happen. All the Best Jennnu (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
MEA Engineering College Article recent content deletion
I would like bring your attention to rectify the deletion of the contents of the article MEA Engineering College, Perinthalmanna marking it as self publicity. In my research it has been found the edits made by Meaengg user, yes, the user has done policy violation, by editing a page about it itself. But seems the user did so to remove another violation, done by a user Midhun1993, as he has uploaded the emblem of of the organization as his work, which a serious copyright violation, instead of using the emblem as fair use, he has taken credit for the design File:MEA Engineering College, Perinthalmanna Emblem By Midhun Mathew.png, which you have reinstated to in your edit. The other details which have deleted in the understanding of it is a copied extensively from meaengg.in and self publicity is overlooking the matter. As those details were entered by genuine users to to add details about the college, and publicity is not apparent from it. the details confirm to the original scenario as facts, which can be verified by any one, keeping in mind it is an educational institution and the credibility of information can be verified with out ambiguity, and as I understand Wikipedia is a source for factual information of credible and notable primary source. I would like to request you, to please delete the file which in violation, that is File:MEA Engineering College, Perinthalmanna Emblem By Midhun Mathew.png, from Wikipedia, and request to undo the deletion other contents, I myself had done some most of the edits. I am new editor and, I try my best to adhere to the wiki policies, any do my best to edits pages that that I have information about. Thank you. AWP 09:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awp9633 (talk • contribs)
- While this content was flagged following correspondence sent to the OTRS team, much of the other content removed was the material that was added by you, which was deemed promotional. Additionally the content was unsourced. Please understand that Wikipedia is not an extension of the college. While it is apparent that the school's website has been disabled at meaengg.in and meaengg.org, in all regards, if the websites were working, Wikipedia would not be a mirror or extension of them. While the website is shut down, we cannot allow the Wikipedia article to host promotional content for the institution's marketing team. In accordance with policy, this content was removed. (I appreciate the heads up about the derivative work uploaded by Midhun1993. I've sent a message to Commons to flag for deletion.) Best regards, Cindy(talk) 22:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- I understand your notice. I have few things to note, you said the contents by me is promotional and alleged that I work as marketing team for the institute, I work for none and the information I entered are out of my knowledge about the institute and is also verifiable from credible source and CEE Kerala State Governement which is the governmental website for educational department in Kerala, and pertaining to notability of the article, MEA is an educational institute in India, and the norms in India might not the same in US. Other then that you noted that the website, www.meaengg.in the official website given in all authoritative websites, is shutdown and the institute is using wiki as mirror page, I disagree with it, when I access the URL it gives the official webpage with out errors which is very comprehensive website to put up long wiki article. Regards,AWP 12:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hey there! I'm sorry if I implied that you are a member of the marketing team. I was speaking in general terms, but I suppose my thoughts got lost in writing. We have no questions about the notability of the school, but rather the promotional content. I understand your assertion that the information you are contributing to the article is verifiable, (outside of your own personal knowledge ([[see WP:OR). We are not questioning verifiability, again, but promotional content. Verifiability and notability are separate and distinct from promotional content. (This is often the case, since official websites are essentially created to promote the entity for whom the site has been developed.) Note that when I attempt to go the school's website using the URL you provide, I get a message "This domain name expired on Feb 28 2012 09:22AM". I'm not sure what is going on there, but I am unable to access the site. Cindy(talk) 18:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate your comments an your assistance for me as beginner, with regards to official website www.meaengg.in, I have tested using webpagetest.org, fom US and other world locations and have got successful results, test result from Boardman, Oregon USA - IE 9 - Cable, Web Page Performance Test for meaengg.in, Best Regards AWP 14:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awp9633 (talk • contribs)
- Sweet! I'm actually able to access the website today. It may be possible that they were updating it earlier. Weird. BTW, I'm about 50 miles north of you on the river. Cindy(talk) 18:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate your comments an your assistance for me as beginner, with regards to official website www.meaengg.in, I have tested using webpagetest.org, fom US and other world locations and have got successful results, test result from Boardman, Oregon USA - IE 9 - Cable, Web Page Performance Test for meaengg.in, Best Regards AWP 14:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awp9633 (talk • contribs)
- Hey there! I'm sorry if I implied that you are a member of the marketing team. I was speaking in general terms, but I suppose my thoughts got lost in writing. We have no questions about the notability of the school, but rather the promotional content. I understand your assertion that the information you are contributing to the article is verifiable, (outside of your own personal knowledge ([[see WP:OR). We are not questioning verifiability, again, but promotional content. Verifiability and notability are separate and distinct from promotional content. (This is often the case, since official websites are essentially created to promote the entity for whom the site has been developed.) Note that when I attempt to go the school's website using the URL you provide, I get a message "This domain name expired on Feb 28 2012 09:22AM". I'm not sure what is going on there, but I am unable to access the site. Cindy(talk) 18:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- I understand your notice. I have few things to note, you said the contents by me is promotional and alleged that I work as marketing team for the institute, I work for none and the information I entered are out of my knowledge about the institute and is also verifiable from credible source and CEE Kerala State Governement which is the governmental website for educational department in Kerala, and pertaining to notability of the article, MEA is an educational institute in India, and the norms in India might not the same in US. Other then that you noted that the website, www.meaengg.in the official website given in all authoritative websites, is shutdown and the institute is using wiki as mirror page, I disagree with it, when I access the URL it gives the official webpage with out errors which is very comprehensive website to put up long wiki article. Regards,AWP 12:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
question about removing someone's warning to edit once the edit has been done
Hi! Thank you for your previous help and I hope you don't mind if I ask you a question about editing. I edited a formatting problem that someone put a warning at that top of the page. After editing I included their comment/warning in the Edit Summary and included what I edited and deleted their warning at the top of the page (but the exact wording is preserved in the Edit Summary). Is that okay? Or is there a better way to do that? I'd go to the person's talk page, but I can't tell who made the warning on the article. Thank you for any insight you can give me. I have a ton of other questions too--let me know if it's okay to ask (basically questions about all the warning at the top of the page). I appreciate your time. Jennnu (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm guessing you're referring to Sian Beilock? Overall, if you're not going to address the concerns identified or have questions about the validity, don't remove the templates. Instead, start a discussion on the article's talk page. I highly recommend also that you click through the links on the maintenance templates to review the specific concern or issue identified. In this specific article, cleanup is still needed to address noncompliance in the section headers. Please note that the maintenance templates are not warnings. They merely provide assistance to help identify and improve articles. I don't mind helping out at all. Bring it on! One of the more pressing concerns I see involves the lead section. At this point, it fails to indicate how or why the subject is significant or important. At the same time, the article greatly lacks independent sources. The subject does not meet the notability guidelines for academics, but may meet the general notability guidelines, which required significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, employer, associations, and affiliates. I also see close paraphrasing and copyright violations starting with the first sentence. I would recommend pulling out her journals used as citations (since they are not independent) and creating a section on "published works". Then work to find reliable and independent sources to assist in establishing notability. Note that the awards received are not notable awards. And having her name on a list of other names is not significant coverage. The first step is to establish notability. In all honesty, if this article was nominated for deletion, it would likely be deleted due to lack of notability established through significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. That said, I'm more than willing to help! Cindy(talk) 01:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
hi there has been a misunderstanding About Slavia News (Alistairwm) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alistairwm (talk • contribs) 05:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- You know, I think you're correct. In addition to blatant promotional content and failure to state how the subject may be significant or important, I should have also indicated that it was a hoax and a copyright violation of http://mashable.com/. Is there anything else I missed? Cindy(talk) 06:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Anti-Hinduism
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anti-Hinduism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 March 2014
- WikiProject report: We have history
- Featured content: Spot the bulldozer
- News and notes: Foundation-supported Wikipedian in residence faces scrutiny
- Traffic report: Into thin air
- Technology report: Wikimedia engineering report