Jump to content

User talk:Cindamuse: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 349: Line 349:
== Kim Man Lui Page ==
== Kim Man Lui Page ==
I am writing to ask for having another review of the page of "Kim Man Lui", who is my teacher. Many liable resources are unfortunately in Chinese as he has written many technical books in China. However, those ISBNs can definitely been checked and some international well-known websites such as Wiley should be considered reliable sources. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Nofriends9999|Nofriends9999]] ([[User talk:Nofriends9999|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nofriends9999|contribs]]) 05:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I am writing to ask for having another review of the page of "Kim Man Lui", who is my teacher. Many liable resources are unfortunately in Chinese as he has written many technical books in China. However, those ISBNs can definitely been checked and some international well-known websites such as Wiley should be considered reliable sources. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Nofriends9999|Nofriends9999]] ([[User talk:Nofriends9999|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nofriends9999|contribs]]) 05:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I spent time to fix the page. But the user MikeWazowski removed lots of the reference. He could say "references in Chinese" not count, but he should not remove them and ruin the page. --[[User:Nofriends9999|Nofriends9999]] ([[User talk:Nofriends9999|talk]]) 05:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)I wrote to MikeWazowski and he of course can give comment etc. But, he substantially took out the stuff I spent lots of time to find. The page is mess and I have been discourage to fix it. I just do not agree on his approach. --[[User:Nofriends9999|Nofriends9999]] ([[User talk:Nofriends9999|talk]]) 06:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC) I just got the comment saying I have been admitted my own COI in the subject. Kim Man Lui as mentioned is an academic staff and he has thousands of students. I am one of them. Can I write for him? If not, this is okay. I am not arguing and I would like to make it clear from wiki Ambassador rather than MikeWazowski.
I spent time to fix the page. But the user MikeWazowski removed lots of the reference. He could say "references in Chinese" not count, but he should not remove them and ruin the page. --[[User:Nofriends9999|Nofriends9999]] ([[User talk:Nofriends9999|talk]]) 05:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)I wrote to MikeWazowski and he of course can give comment etc. But, he substantially took out the stuff I spent lots of time to find. The page is mess and I have been discourage to fix it. I just do not agree on his approach. --[[User:Nofriends9999|Nofriends9999]] ([[User talk:Nofriends9999|talk]]) 06:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC) I just got the comment saying I have been admitted my own COI in the subject. Kim Man Lui as mentioned is an academic staff and he has thousands of students. I am one of them. Can I write for him? If not, this is okay. I am not arguing and I would like to make it clear from wiki Ambassador to confirm. In this case, I am not going to write or edit it. FYI
http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MikeWazowski&action=edit&section=33 --[[User:Nofriends9999|Nofriends9999]] ([[User talk:Nofriends9999|talk]]) 06:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:35, 25 January 2012


Everybody has a right to have a tizzy fit every once in a while.

That said, please don't tizzy on my talk page.

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Wikipedia Ambassadors program
Ambassador Principles
Campus Ambassadors (WP:CAMPUS)
Online Ambassadors (WP:ONLINE)
WikiProject U.S. Public Policy (WP:USPP)
Schools and courses
Resources
IRC schedule
Ambassador Steering Committee
Editing Fridays

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking

seeking online ambassador

Greetings - During the Spring 2012 semester, my students enrolled in PSYSC 373, Industrial Psychology at Ball State University, will be creating/editing course-relevant wikipedia articles. I am doing this in response to the Association for Psychological Science Wikipedia Initiative. As I am a new wikipedia user, and most of my stduents (N = 40) are also likely to have little/no experience, I think someone such as yourself would be a great resource. Are you available? It is not clear to me from the existing pages how one goes about requesting an Ambassador.
Thanks, Michael J. Tagler, Ph.D., Assistant Professor. Mjtagler (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC) APS-Wikipedia Initiative[reply]

  • I'm not familiar with the APS-Wikipedia Initiative WikiProject. The Wikipedia Education Program provides Online Ambassadors to work with university and college courses in the US, Canada, India, and Egypt (next session). The program is actually going through a transition right now. Unfortunately, I am not able to commit to assisting courses or students at this time. Essentially, with India and Egypt coming on board, there will be quite a bit of cleanup work that will be taking the majority of my time. This past session, I worked with over 300 students, in addition to serving on the Steering Committee, and have realized that I need to take a step back from burning the candle at both ends. How did you hear about the Ambassador Program? In the past, I worked with Dr. Newbold's class and found it quite enjoyable. Are you working with a Campus Ambassador? While I'm not able to commit to the class this semester, I'll certainly help you get plugged in. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the reply! I would very much appreciate your assistance to get "plugged in". Unfortunately, I'm not yet aware of any Campus Ambassadors here at Ball State University. I just sent an email to Dr. Newbold to learn of his experiences. I heard about the Ambassador program via the APS-Wikipedia Initiative, but it is not all clear to me how to get "plugged in", as you say! If I can't find a campus ambassador, I'm optimistic all will go well with one or two good online ambassadors. I will have approximately 40 students in the class that begins January 9, and I"m currently working out how to set everything up. Here is the official information from APS on their wikipedia initiative. Thanks again, I am very appreciative of your assistance. Mjtagler (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile

I discovered this. Cooper Surname DNA Project. My ex-wife was/is a Cooper, her father was born in Scotland and came to the US at age 4 or 5, and this makes our kids part owners of Cooper DNA. I think. Can you tell me more about this, and is there a better place to do it? Carptrash (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that my eeklon at yahoo dot com address? Finding this message would be a great way to begin 2012. Carptrash (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure. When we click on the link at the right side of the Wikipedia page, email just goes directly to whichever email account you have attached to your Wikipedia account. Do you want me to forward it to the yahoo address? Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 16:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. I'm new here (sort of) new enough to not know about that feature. Still Jan 1 and already I've learned something. Carptrash (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I looked into my preferences and discovered an email address that has not existed for 5 years. Without arguing too much about the meaning of existence. Carptrash (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

bittersweet bettering/embitterment

Cindy, I appreciate that you did not make any major deletions to my additions. I will begin reviewing policy that relates to your quality, cleanup, and formatting tags. However, the issue that the article may not be sourced properly is something I've thoroughly addressed, spending dozens of hours studying the files you've referred me to, tediously revising my writing, addressing your objections with civility, clarity, and precision. You've stated your general objection already. You can't continue stating it (i.e. via a tag that says the same thing) without serious work addressing particular context. Respectfully, it stands I will file a dispute claim if you replace the tag or the like prior to combing the references and forming an exhaustive, documented opinion on the matter. I will continue to respect/study what you bring to the table, but I have the right to ask the same in return. I hope this compromising will set a precedent for eliminating any embitterment between us. Squish7 (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you replaced the tag while I was writing this. It probably crossed over, but if you have read this and still replace it, I will file a dispute claim immediately. Squish7 (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Significant: References about the subject – at least one lengthy paragraph, preferably more. Not passing mentions, not directory listings, not just any old thing that happens to have the name in it. Several of them. It must be notable.
Reliable sources: Something that is generally trusted to tell the truth. A major newspaper, a factual, widely-published book, high-quality mainstream publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Not blogs, MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, fansites, or Twitter. It must be verifiable.
Independent: Nothing written by the subject, paid for by the subject, or affiliated with the subject. Not their website, not a press release, not their employer, or their sponsors. It must be independent.
Reliable sources noticeboard: It is recommended that you inquire and present your concerns and assertions regarding reliable sources to the RSN. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 18:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't re-format my arguments again, not without some type of response from you to the hours I've spent already doing so. Your only response over the past month has been to refer to more and more policy files, guidelines, etc. I can't write a continuous stream of theses rehashing the same points. You must cite specific claims and particular context if you object to any my sourcing. I could respond to this latest thin-air formulation of your objection, but my contributions to Wikipedia can't include more than dozens of hours of my time to appease a single individual. If you spend hours viewing all the videos and reading all the relevant articles and form a coherent, precise opinion, and still disagree, then we can at least discuss the matter. Squish7 (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought through your above post. You're just not getting the idea that the time you spend typing out things I already know could be very beneficial to all involved if you could spend that time addressing particulars. Quotes like "at least one paragraph" say absolutely nothing about the Doyle article. Why not take the same time and say, "your last paragraph does not meet reliability because..." The sea of applicable policy in fusion with the content of my topic, writing, and 20-30 sources, create a COMPLEX picture. It's very isomorphic with the difference between learning from a textbook, and being able to ask questions in class. I feel like I'm asking questions that you could answer, but you just keep saying "read the textbook", when I already memorized it before walking into your class. Squish7 (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You also have to take into account that all these clauses were not written with video networking in mind. With a void of clauses citing precisely "19 seconds of X video constitutes...", the more general mandates and purposes of Wikipedia reside. That is, its purpose and mandate generate all these clauses. You have to constantly question them and adapt them for them to evolve with the growing digital world. Squish7 (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dispute claim

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Ryan Doyle". Thank you.

Ryan Doyle

Hi, you took part in discussion regarding maintenance tags on the article Ryan Doyle, so i am informing you of ongoing discussion Talk:Ryan Doyle#Maintenance. Cheers, benzband (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Ryan Doyle's talk page. BTW, this has little to do with it but i shamelessly copied content from User:Cindamuse/Googs as i found the concept most interesting. benzband (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Marchmont Observatory

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Marchmont Observatory. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G2 "The article's talk page"

Agreed this should be deleted ASAP, but given the user probably created it in accident, isn't putting the standard CSD warning on their talk page a little bit bitey? --Ritchie333 (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for contacting me. It's actually recommended that CSD notices are always placed on the article creator's talk page, after placing on an article. The TW script adds it automatically. (The specific one was a notice, which serves to provide guidance.) Feel free to contact me if you have further questions or need help with anything. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 17:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Randi Morgan inspired by Donna Beck?

Why reverting my edits on the statements? There is no proof from non-primary sources that Randi is an inspiration of Donna Beck; to me it is original research because Randi and Donna were compared and analyzed. Why re-inserting them? --George Ho (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The statement that the edit was removed due to lack of relevance was inappropriate, while based on personal opinion. The storyline of Randi and Donna were comparable and while currently unsourced is not original research. The comparison of characters is not the claim of notability and accordingly, may be supported by primary sources. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...Well, I did not know how biased my edits were, but I could not tell how neutral my edits were. I thought "relevancy" is neutral, isn't it? Does it matter whether Donna is an inspiration of Randi? How can primary sources, such as All My Children itself, confirm an inspiration? --George Ho (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see your point. I would recommend copy editing to stating that the character of Randi has been compared to Donna, with the 1970s storyline of Dr. Chuck Tyler and the young prostitute mimicking the 2000s storyline of Dr. Frankie Hubbard and the young prostitute Randi. As far as relevancy, what is relevant to one may not be relevant to another. It's all subjective, lacking neutrality. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Isn't this also an original research without verification? Wouldn't inserting statements of comparison and contrast between two characters be analyzing without non-primary reliable sources? If that is not an original research, then what else is that? --George Ho (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict) Moreover, I have taken your points that subjective statements may be valuable, even if they do not verify notability and neutrality. Still, I stick my views on those statements. --George Ho (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sorry if I wasn't clear (which is apparent after reading what I wrote above). Subjective statements equate to personal opinion, lacking neutrality. As far as verification, the show itself (as a primary source), as well as books can provide verification. There are actually several books that offer details. I have to be honest, I'm coming down with a migraine, and need to take a break. I'll add some sources to the article later. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 21:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Therefore, are either the statements that were re-inserted or my views on them "subjective"? ...To be honest, I have begun to realize that comparison between two of them may have balanced the reality and fiction, yet I'm too blind and too literate to interpret. I didn't realize: whether or not the comparison relates to this character's fictional background does not affect a possible impact on culture. Still, if no non-primary sources confirm these, they may be confirmed as "original research". Am I right? --George Ho (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I just got done copy editing the information and adding some references. Essentially, the content was used to bring what we call an "in universe" aspect of the fictional subject. Take a look and let me know if you have any questions. (I still have a migraine, but it's lessened due to a monstrous icepack. ;) Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 00:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DJ OZMA

A new move request has been started suggesting that it be moved to "DJ Ozma". You are welcome to contribute, once more.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy

Congratulations on receiving the first ever CHOCOLATE IN DANDY, LIQUOR IS QUICKER & COMBINED THEY ARE UNBEATABLE award. Please wear it (or whatever you plan to do with it) with pride. Carptrash (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A noted LA musician has returned

And he's editing again. Natty10000 (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm notable, Natty, why do leave Cinda's notability tag? Ace Baker (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mathais Svalina

Are you saying that even though it was a cut-and-paste move, since only two edits were made to the original article it doesn't matter? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 18:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Essentially, yes. The first article has only edits by the article creator, who requested deletion. If there were substantial edits by other editors in the first article (which is not currently reflected), we would make the move and history merge as suggested. There's no reason to "move" the article from Mathais Svalina, since the article already exists at Mathias Svalina. Rather than delete either article, the first is a plausible redirect to the second. If it wasn't, we would only need to delete the first article. Hope this makes sense. In the end, the results are the same, but no deletion is required. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 18:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that makes perfect sense. Only problem is that I had asked DragonflySixtySeven to look at it before you got started, and now we have the world's most confusing page history... Nolelover Talk·Contribs18:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, DragonflySixtySeven spent some time with an unnecessary history merge with this article. No harm; no foul. Hope you have a great day! Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 18:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Javier O. Huerta

Hello! Thanks for the edits. How can I add to the "notability" of this author so the entry is no longer flagged for notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jecz (talk • contribs) 20:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Empowerment evaluation - repost

Hi I would appreciate it if you would repost my empowerment evaluation page. I think it is an important contribution to make to the evaluation community. I am the founder of the approach. I presented it to the American Evaluation Association in 1993, as part of my presidential address. I am the author or co-author of many of the books and articles involved and, as such, I can see where that might have triggered the automatic deletion and appearance of a COI problem. However, upon inspection, I think I provided a balance perspective on the topic. I have cited many colleagues who are critical of the approach (two waves of critique), as well as supporters. In addition, I have conducted evaluations for over 25 years, including traditional and empowerment and qualitative and quantitative approaches. I am also happy to modify the piece as you recommend. Many thanks in advance for your assistance. Best wishes.- David Profdavidf (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please contact the editor that deleted your article at Tnxman307. Keep in mind that as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not the place to promote awareness of your career, books, or products. We cannot accept copyrighted materials on the encyclopedia either. In essence, we would need documentation that you are the copyright holder and that you agree to release the content to Wikipedia. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 21:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William C. Braithwaite/William Charles Braithwaite

Dear Cindy, Thanks for your message on my talkpage. I'm a bit confused by it however -- as you say you are deleting the William Charles Braithwaite page. It is much more sensible to delete the William C. Braithwaite page, as you in fact appear to have done. I'd appreciate it if that's the way round we resolve it (rather than deleting William Charles Braithwaite as you seem to suggest on my talkpage). This should be uncontroversial -- I created both pages in quick succession, so it's not stepping on anyone's toes. The whole issue has arisen because I used "Copy/paste" rather than "Move", so I'm apologetic and grateful for your help. FrenchieAlexandre (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Cindamuse, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Cindamuse/Workshop/Doug Owsley.

  • See a log of files removed today here.
  • Shut off the bot here.
  • Report errors here.
  • If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

There is a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block review/unblock proposal, in which you might have an interest. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

help with wikipedia use in classroom

Dear Cindamuse, I am an instructor of Psychology and I am starting to use Wikipedia assignments for the first time this semester. I already created a course page and I have an account. However, I am relatively new to Wikipedia and I would definitely appreciate some guidance. Thanks for your time. S.mereu (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • No problem, please feel free to contact me if/when you have questions or need help navigating through Wikipedia's vast world of policies and guidelines. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 19:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I am in touch with more people now and I figures out a few things already. However, I am still in search for an Online Ambassador. The question is, do they assign an Ambassador to me or do I find one? In which case, would you be interested in being an Online Ambassador for my class? It is a Cognitive Psychology 300 level course, so if I remember correctly it should be in your range of expertise. Thanks! S.mereu (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cindy, I added you as Online Ambassador for my Cognitive Psychology class. You might occasionally receive inquiries from my students, let me know if that is ok for you. Thanks! S.mereu (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Client-Directed Outcome-Informed therapy

Hi -- I'm working on the page Client-Directed Outcome-Informed therapy, which just got tagged for copyvio. That happened before, and I rewrote it and got it cleared by AngelOfSadness talk before reposting. Can you remove speedy delete tag and/or advise how to proceed? Thanks Engelhardt (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would recommend working on it in a subpage of your userspace, then submitting it to the Articles for Creation team. I found the copyright violation very quickly, without prior knowledge that it had been previously deleted. You can review the duplication report here. You can run your own report at this site: http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/duplicationdetector/. Feel free to contact me again if you have questions or need help. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 04:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that's exactly what I did before and thought I had done everything I needed to do by getting clearance from the admin before moving it back to the main page. I've edited the article some more to try to avoid copyvio, but after reviewing the duplicate detector report, I think a lot of the hits are false positives based on the fact the two short summary pages on the same topic drawing from the same sources are necessarily going to use a lot of the same phrases such as: the names of the developers of the approach, the names of the two brief surveys that are given as part of the approach, the name of the approach itself, and various terms of art such as "correlation" and "subjective experience." It also seems bogus that the top hit on the detector report is the title of the allegedly copyvio'd website which is referenced in the wikipedia article. Best - Engelhardt (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't worry about the false positive at the top of the report, which is easy to discern. Keep working on the article to remove direct copyright violations. Remember to edit the article using your own words. Close paraphrasing remains a copyright violation. I can't speak for the other editor, but we don't have a process where an editor or admin provides clearance void of further review. Overall, outside of the duplication report, it is fairly easy to see the copyvio. A comparison of text from both URLs reveals direct correlation. Again, just keep working on it. I still recommend copying it back to your subpage, since another editor may come along and delete the article while you're working on it in the mainspace. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 05:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

Please comment on Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please Discuss the Issue of Notability of Historical Figures in Small Communities

Who is notable and who is not? For example, if a historical figure was the mayor of a large city, then everyone would assume that he was noteworthy. But if a historical figure was the mayor of a small town, then it appears that Wikipedia editors believe that he is not noteworthy because the town was small. In my view there are several reasons why this is bad policy:

  • Who is to decide what is "small enough" to not rate vs. what is "large enough" to rate? Where is the line? And can it be consistently applied?
  • It discriminates against smaller towns -- a person of enormous influence in the small town would never rate -- simply because of the size of the town.
  • It also appears disingenuous for Wikipedia to list information about a small town -- devoting a whole page to it on the site -- and yet be unwilling to add additional historical details of its prominent citizens.
  • In an electronic environment where inclusion of historical information about small communities is just a few more "bytes" it seems petty to legislate against it. After all, this isn't a print encyclopedia -- so there is no justification of limiting the quantity of articles
  • Not allowing historical information about key people in small communities keeps the public from a wealth of historical information.

Simply put, it would appear that if a historical person had been discussed in printed articles and newspapers at the time when he or she was alive then it passes the test of notability. After all how can we, many decades later, make a judgment call of "notability" when we weren't there to know?

So, please tell me on what grounds Wikipedia routinely deletes articles about historical individuals of significance to their small communities -- because they are not "notable." Thanks. Historicalbios (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia actually has notability guidelines pertaining to a wide range of subjects. The guidelines for people can be found here, while specific guidelines pertaining to politicians can be found here. The Frederick Strain article was deleted as a recreation of an article previously deleted as a result of community consensus. You can see the discussion here. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 06:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahh, but if you read the original "community consensus" you will see that while some voiced that it was noteworthy when taken in the context of a small community, the majority said that he was insignificant because the town he served was small. The point is that the article does meet the Wikipedia criteria: primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Also, if you take a careful look, you will see that two or three of those who voted to delete the article were systematically endeavoring to delete all of the contributions of the author. Whenever editors gang up on an author Wikipedia should ALWAYS error on the side of the author. Bullying by editors is one of the reasons Wikipedia is now in trouble (as reported in various media outlets). I encourage you to actually read the original post and original deletion discussion. Trace out the trail of those who were attempting to censure the contributions of the author. Such actions by Wikipedia is shameful and should not be tolerated. And the truth is that this man made a significant contribution to his community as attested by his peers at the time. There is ample proof of that. I have seen many articles on Wikipedia that have far less actual cited references. Historicalbios (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

From what I understand, the candidate is based in India, and 93.186.23.80 appears to be posting from a WiFi connection in or near Skipton in North Yorkshire, England. Google searching provides no Twitter returns for the cited statements - or even anything similar anywhere. Two Twiter accounts for the same or similar names are not the same person and appear to be unconnected with the candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, Mike is in Bangalore. He has a twitter account, albeit it under a different name. He hasn't posted anything since December 17, 2011 and doesn't generally post anything about Wikipedia. On the other hand, the nominator does actually have a twitter account and regularly rants about various disputes he has with Wikipedia. (No idea who the IP is though.) Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 12:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the voters are syops (and one steward), and the others are well established users. I think we may possibly have a troll IP on our hands. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vote for troll. I noticed he changed his IP address. He could be an editor with a registered account that experienced some difficulties with his editing at the hands of the nominator. Oy vey. LOL Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 13:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possible. The IP has only changed by the last digit. probably switched his smartphone off and reconnected. It's the same WiFi location - maybe he's just moved to another pub just down the road! How far do we let it go before I block for disrupting a due due process? Perhaps just move the whole thing to the talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would opt to move it to the talk page. At this point, the only purpose appears to be an attempt to disrupt. Things like this really puzzle me. A new editor comes on an RFA only for the purpose of disruption? Clearly he is not a new editor, otherwise, how would he know to come to an RFA, how does he know that he is not able to offer a recommendation, and why would he know or be concerned about canvassing? Somethings very fishy in fishville. Makes me wonder who he really is and what agenda he has on his mind. Ugh. LOL Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 17:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously a sock. I've pinpointed it to the street where the WiFi is based. CUs can do better - but as yet there are unfortunately no compelling grounds for an SPI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the spring semester

Cindy, I noticed that Mitch Harden added his classes (twice, it seems?) to this page, and left the ambassador names on -- surely they should be blanked? Also, given LiAnna's recent email, 200 students would require about a dozen ambassadors, so I'd be surprised if they included this class since it would absorb so many of the available ambassadors. Is there a list somewhere of the classes for which we should be signing up? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Honestly, I don't have the answers for you. The WMF Outreach team is running a bit rogue right now, leaving the volunteers and Steering Committee out of the loop. The WMFO is setting up the program without regard for overwhelming the community. Several volunteers are disillusioned and stepping back from the program. We simply do not have the interest or OAs to support the influx of students and classes that the WMFO is bringing in. They have stated that they are limiting the number of students and classes, but have failed to deliver a structure or means to accomplish this task. I sense a big mess left to the community to clean up. I will not be working directly with any students or classes exclusively this next semester. After this past semester, I've just basically thrown my hands up in the air. Time will tell whether the education program has a future or not. Wish I had better news for you. Hope you are doing well. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 02:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ouch. I'd like to query LiAnna and Jami about the state of play; would you mind if I linked to your comments, or quoted you? I do want to stay involved in the program, so this is very disappointing. On the upside, the use of ambassadors is new and classes have been successful in the past without them, so perhaps this is not a disaster. It's not progress, though! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a meeting on Wednesday evening to try to get some answers. Jami is the official liaison and I've shared all of this with her, but it just doesn't seem to get through. Initially, the Steering Committee was established to oversee the Ambassador Program online. In previous semesters, the SC has assisted classes and students in the effort to utilize WP in the classroom. This has included developing course pages and filtering classes, professors, and students to the proper resources and individuals to ensure their success. We worked on a consistent basis to ensure that all students and classes were paired with OAs. My research on behalf of the SC has shown that the understood role and responsibility of the committee is diametrically opposed to that of the understanding of the WMFO. Apparently, the SC evolved in a manner that is not supported by the WMF. A request to the WMF for clarification of the purpose and role of the Steering Committee has gone unanswered for three months. So, yes, LiAnna and Jami are the ones to go to. As a Steering Committee initially tasked with ensuring the development and maintenance of a quality education program, our hands are tied at this point. I am not comfortable moving forward or assisting with the program anymore, without knowing that my efforts are appreciated, rather than exploited. This next semester, it appears that we will have in excess of 2000 students. I would venture to say that with the expected number of active OAs, this would require taking on between 75 to 100 students per person. I suppose I'm a cynic, but in my opinion, the ratio is simply unfeasible. When I joined the Ambassador Program, I looked forward to working with professors and students, believing that there was a higher purpose in supporting the WMF. When I initially joined the Steering Committee, I was enthusiastic and excited, because I was told that the program was fully run by the volunteers. I believed that my professional background would be an asset in sustaining and improving the quality of the program overall. At this point, I'm just disillusioned along with the rest of the community. I cannot stretch myself thin like I have in the past anymore, when most of my time is spent cleaning up the mess resulting from inadequate support, poor planning, and widespread disorganization. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 03:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit surprised by the student ratio concerns, because LiAnna's email on 1/11 said that it would be limited to 15, which seems reasonable. She posted a link to [2] which repeats that number. If you would let me know what you find out on Wednesday evening, I'd really appreciate it. And if I haven't said so before, thanks for serving on the SC; I appreciate having someone like you to go to with questions. Even if you're not happy with the current state of play, you're still doing a very useful function by giving other editors like me a point of contact. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ratio of 1:15 simply means that every 15 students must have at least one OA. It doesn't limit OAs to working with only 15 students. LiAnna's "Participation Requirements" support the students, but puts a strain on the volunteers. It's supply and demand. LiAnna has increased the demand for OAs, while failing to increase the supply. In the end, every OA will simply be working with more students in order to meet the ratio. The requirements are unrealistic. It would work if we had only 350-400 students, but the outlook is approximately 2,000, with no structure in place to limit the number of classes or students. Thanks for your encouragement. It truly means more than you know. I'll keep you posted on anything new. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 05:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Cindamuse. You have new messages at Rsrikanth05's talk page.
Message added 17:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

About MikeLynch's RfA. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Hindhead Tunnel

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hindhead Tunnel. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tercer Cielo

I translate of spanish wikipedia to english wikipedia,plis help me with the article,thanks Carliitaeliza (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is recommended that you follow the guidance offered on your talk page here on en.wp and your talk page at es.wp pertaining to your block there. I am not able to help you with translations or editing of an article that does not exist. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 04:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Boott rewrite ...

Hi Cindamuse: I am a newer editor volunteering at the Brooklyn Museum. Yesterday I started an article about Lizzie Boott Duveneck that you rewrote. That's ok (tho frankly I felt some ownership). My question is this: how did you find it to rewrite so quickly? I had started it but had to go, and when I came to look at it again, you'd taken it to the finish line. How did it come to your attention so fast? Thanks for the help... How is it going in the Northwest? WilliamJustinM (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey there! Welcome to Wikipedia! When a new article is created, it is placed in a queue of new articles. These articles are then patrolled to ensure basic quality standards. I came upon your article and restructured it to comply with the Manual of Style for biographies, then added some content and references. Hope it helps. As far as the Northwest? The car is in a block of ice and I'm freezing!!! LOL Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 08:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Sanremo Music Festival 2012

Hi Cindy,

I noticed that Sanremo Music Festival 2012 has been nominated for speedy deletion. I find this quite bizarre, when it is connected to an annual music festival, which is also used to select the Eurovision entry for Italy. There are other articles for Sanremo covering previous years, which have never been nominated for deletion, so I find it strange that the 2102 edition is nominated. The article is also part of the WikiProject Eurovision. This speedy deletion needs to be halted and a review of consensus made before hand. Kindest regards for your time - Wesley Mouse (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere forgiveness, it does now appear that articles for the previous contests have also been deleted or amalgamated into Sanremo Music Festival. Wesley Mouse (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've added you to my watchlist, for future reference. I do find it strange though that there is an article for the main festival itself, but nothing covering the annual contests. After all, the Saanremo is what inspired the Eurovision Song Contest to begin. There's a main article as well as annual ones for Eurovision. Would it be worthwhile for me to look into doing something similar for each annual sanremo, following the same manual of style as is used for Eurovision. Only reason I ask is that the main Sanremo article is starting to get rather lengthy as it is covering a table of winners going back 60+ years. Wesley Mouse (talk) 11:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you again. I thought it may be worth noting that Sanremo Music Festival is the Italian version of selecting a song for Eurovision Song Contest. There's also Melodifestivalen which is a similar contest for Sweden, and they use that to select their entry for Eurovision. There's also annual contest articles for Melodifestivalen, such as Melodifestivalen 2012. If Sanremo 2012 article is failing G11 ruling, then wouldn't that mean that each respective annual Melodifestivalen and Eurovision articles would also be failing G11? It is starting to look like a a grey area rule in my opinion. Wesley Mouse (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It all really depends on how the article is written. The state of one does not dictate the outcome of another. The article primarily exists to promote the upcoming festival. Nothing encyclopedic about it. "The Sanremo Music Festival 2012 will be..." does not present what the festival "is", but rather what it "plans to be". This is the essence of marketing and promotion. Keep in mind that anytime you disagree with a CSD tag, you should make your case known on the article's talk page. It could feasibly be brought for community discussion, but I'm not concerned at the moment. If another editor takes it to AFD, please make sure to present your concerns there. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 12:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I may have to disagree on your outlook of the line "The Sanremo Music Festival 2012 will be..." meaning it is an advert. All of the Eurovision articles start off with a similar line. Even the 2012 article starts off with "The Eurovision Song Contest 2012 will be the 57th annual Eurovision Song Contest", however this doesn't make it advertising, it is only referring to a future event (which is within the scope of WP:N) and I can't see any other way to word it other than using the phrase "will be". If the use of "will be" is advertising, then a review of other articles such as the Olympics, which also use the phrase "will be" would be considered to be advertising. Wesley Mouse (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

News from Wednesday

Cindy, just checking in to see if there's any news from the Wednesday steering committee meeting that you mentioned. Of course I'm curious to know what happened. Also, did you happen to see this? I'm about to reply; it's a bit disappointing but I'll see if I can get that question added in some form.

And did you know that Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) now has a permanent job with the WMF as community liaison? She's using her real name, Maggie Dennis, under account Mdennis (WMF) (talk · contribs), for the role. If we find there is a problem in working with the foundation, I think it would be good to involve Maggie. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PoolWerx Page Deletion Query

Hi there, I am posting in regards to a page that has been deleted - PoolWerx. This particular page had previously been moderated by you and put up for deletion. After the deletion I did everything that you asked of me and republished the page. You reviewed it again and gave me a 'barnstar' praising the page for my quickly learnt ability. Since this time there has been no major changes made to the page. To my disgust when I got back from holidays over Christmas and New Years the page had been put up for deletion by administrator Eagles247 and deleted on the 29/12/2011. If you could please inform me as to what changed since I received the 'barnstar' for the post to get it deleted that would be great. Kind Regards, Shannon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannonob90 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Shannon! Sorry to hear that the PoolWerx article was deleted. It is generally recommended that articles are first drafted in a subpage of your userspace, which minimizes the possibility of deletion. I came across the article initially while patrolling new pages. Rather than moderating the article, the patrol is a primary function of the community in which experienced editors are encouraged to participate. While I didn't submit your article for speedy deletion, another editor went that route, based on promotional tone and content. I offered assistance, to which it was clear that you were able to quickly grasp various guidelines and implement them in the article accordingly. The barnstar that I offered was presented to encourage you. I recognized your sincere effort to improve the articles and wanted to let you know that you were headed in the right direction. Unfortunately, there was more work that needed to be done in the article in order secure its existence in the encyclopedia, but apparently, we were sidetracked over the holidays and the article was submitted for deletion by User:Eagles247 and deleted by User:Reaper Eternal. This was again, due to "unambiguous advertising or promotion". Essentially, the article presented biased content and primarily served to promote awareness of the organization. At this point, I would recommend contacting User:Reaper Eternal and asking him to "userfy" the article, which simply means that he would place a copy of the deleted article in a subpage of your userspace. You would then be able to continue working on the article without the threat of speedy deletion due to a promotional nature. When you feel that the article is ready for publishing to the mainspace, you could ask User:Reaper Eternal or User:Eagles247 for feedback or submit it to the Articles for Creation team to ensure compliance. I would also be open to taking another look at it. If you have additional questions, please feel free to contact me anytime. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 08:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Man Lui Page

I am writing to ask for having another review of the page of "Kim Man Lui", who is my teacher. Many liable resources are unfortunately in Chinese as he has written many technical books in China. However, those ISBNs can definitely been checked and some international well-known websites such as Wiley should be considered reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nofriends9999 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC) I spent time to fix the page. But the user MikeWazowski removed lots of the reference. He could say "references in Chinese" not count, but he should not remove them and ruin the page. --Nofriends9999 (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)I wrote to MikeWazowski and he of course can give comment etc. But, he substantially took out the stuff I spent lots of time to find. The page is mess and I have been discourage to fix it. I just do not agree on his approach. --Nofriends9999 (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC) I just got the comment saying I have been admitted my own COI in the subject. Kim Man Lui as mentioned is an academic staff and he has thousands of students. I am one of them. Can I write for him? If not, this is okay. I am not arguing and I would like to make it clear from wiki Ambassador to confirm. In this case, I am not going to write or edit it. FYI http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MikeWazowski&action=edit&section=33 --Nofriends9999 (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cindamuse&oldid=473115733"