User talk:Cindamuse/Archive 13

Speedy deletion declined: Reelsville (album)
Hello Cindamuse. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Reelsville (album), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, or is not a musical recording. Thank you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting me. My sincere congratulations on your new role as administrator. While I didn't get a chance to weigh in during your RFA, I think you will be a welcome addition to the admin team. That said, I went ahead and sent this article for community discussion. The current version of the article was something like the third or fourth recreation, while previously deleted according to the A9 criteria, as a recording of an artist, for whom an article did not exist. After the last deletion, the editor got creative and attempted to indicate the importance or significance of the album, based on the significance of one of the songs on the album. However, this was misleading. The one source offered, refers to a song "Quasimodo's Dream" from the band's album Quasimodo's Dream, rather than a reinterpretation of "Quasimodo's Dream" from the solo artist's album, Reelsville. The band's song was honored, rather than the solo artist's rendition. You can find the AFD discussion here. Please don't hesitate to contribute to the discussion, presenting your concerns or support. Thanks,  Cind. amuse  03:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

"Eddsworld" Speedy Deletion Nomination
Hello, this is Zach. I am the creator of the article "Eddsworld" that you proposed for Speedy Deletion a few days ago. First, I would like to thank you for all the work you do for Wikipedia. "Thank-You". Next, I wanted to inform you that sense then I have worked very hard on the article and I believe that I have found proper, reliable sources that support the subject's notability. I have also removed some unnecessary information and any references that are not proper (like the blogs and user-accounts). These sources were difficult to find, but that does not subtract from their reliability. I have also been working with other Wikipedians on ways to improve the article and now I believe it is up to par, as I believe the sources now prove its notability (via the 3rd Wikipedia Web Criteria). I was wondering if you could please re-evaluate your first decision to delete the article to see if these improvements meet your standard of what is "notable". I will admit that the article is not the best, but I see deletion as too much. Maybe one of those "clean-up" notifications could be posted on the article? Any-way, thank-you for reading and any consideration you put into the Eddsworld article. Zach Winkler (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, this is Zach again. I just wanted to notify you that I added another comment to the discussion page and wanted to thank-you for the large impute on the sources I used. I will be removing most of those by tomorrow, but I am in the process in getting an important reference that is not on the web (if it comes in time) from the BBC. Do you think one of those "This article may not meet notability guidelines" notifications would be good to attach to the article? I do not mean to seem bothersome, so if I am, I apologize. Thank-you for the assistance and attention you are putting into this mini-project. Zach Winkler (talk) 05:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Delete nomination of Diary of a Bad Man
I have removed your CSD#A7 from Diary of a Bad Man because I think the article does make a credible assertion of notability,(The large number of views) albeit one that does not pass the stricter regular article notability standards. I have replaced it with a notability PROD. Monty 845  18:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Diary of a Bad Man
Cindamuse, I am not entirely sure why you re-applied the CSD-A7 tag to this article after another editor removed it, with the valid claim that the article makes a credible claim to assertion. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I just saw your note on Monty845's talk page, and will respond there. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Clive Parker
why did you undo the stuff i did please? Ninabrem (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting me. The changes were made according to Wikipedia's policy on copyright issues. The specific concerns with this edit were the YouTube videos used as references. Directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. Here is a link for more information on links which should be avoided. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you ever have any other questions. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  21:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Expressway video was recorded by the girlfriend of the promoter Metroplis Music. She had full authorisation from the band.  It is a video that doesn't violate copyright. The Marshall Star video is an authorised up-load by the band themselves and offers no copyright issues. Both pieces of work show Clive Parker performimg, which is valuable footage towards the authenticity of the article, and I hope will go someway to help remove the citation notices that you have displayed in the header of the page. Videos uploaded by the owner of the work do not infringe copyright. Ninabrem (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has strict guidelines pertaining to copyright compliance. Identification and verification of the owner of these videos and/or permissions granted has not been made. We cannot use these videos as references. These videos do not assist in determining the authenticity of the article. Videos of this nature are defined as primary sources. This article needs significant coverage in secondary and third-party sources to support notability. Regards,  Cind. amuse  22:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. The videos are linked from the bands official website and are fully 'cleared' band videos. They do act as an authentic document of otherwise marginal and underground groups, because the performances show and therefore verify band personnel. You have also undone the changes I made to the text. I corrected your mistaken use of Clive's name, where you say he was 'known' as Clive Parker or Clive Parker-Sharp. This is untrue. This suggests it wasn't his real name. His name actually changed in 1999. You keep mentioning him as 'Parker', in the wrong instances, as you do not know. I therefore have used 'Clive' so that it is consistant and makes sense. You have undone these changes without any explaination also. Surely this is not right.Ninabrem (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Nina, the changes that were made were actually explained in the edit summary. You can find more information about editing Wikipedia biographies at this link. Specific issues about general editing in compliance with the Manual of Style can be found here. In the case of the subject's name, we use the name by which the subject is most recognized during their years of notability. Hence, the name of the article. We also refer to the subject in subsequent article mentions by the surname, rather than the given name. I reviewed the Marshall Star website and found no mention or link to any authorized YouTube accounts. If you can provide a link to an official website that authorizes the use of the videos, I would be happy to take a look to ascertain the appropriateness as external links.  Cind. amuse  00:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok I will try and find a link. Clive is the artiste, owns the video and submitted to Utube. He is privvy to these discussions and suggested inserting these links. He was always known by his real name 'Clive', not his surname, Parker or Parker-Sharp. When you say 'known as' it implies an alias, which is not the case.  He has requested the use of his real name, Clive. So you are saying he can not be referred to by his real name? Ninabrem (talk) 08:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, let me know when you find a link. Word of mouth regarding ownership of the videos will not suffice. If there is a band website that either has a link to an authorized YT account or has the video on their website releasing use of the video under Creative Commons, that will work. As far as the name, the subject is referred according to the name used in reliable and independent sources. Professionally, he is known by the name of Clive Parker. Accordingly, the article is titled as such. So, in essence, as far as the interests of the encyclopedia is concerned, yes, I am stating that the subject cannot choose the name by which he is referred. You can find our guidelines on conflicts of interest here. I realize this must be frustrating to no end. Wikipedia is often mistaken as a web host or promotional tool, in order for editors to create articles and edit with goals to present a subject in the best possible light. This is not the case. Wikipedia, while providing opportunities for open-source editing, has specific policies and guidelines to ensure compliance. Yes, it may be frustrating, but the goal is to support the integrity of Wikipedia. We have to work within the policies and guidelines. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  09:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no Marshall Star website anymore so I am curious as to what you are saying above as you said you've been on their site and researched it - where is it??! The Marshall Star footage links from official sites CD baby; http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/marshalls2 and The Orchard http://www.theorchard.co.uk/artist/30662/bio The Orchard & CD Baby can only use copyrighted product from bands / labels with the relevant links to officially cleared material.

John Moore official site; http://www.john-moore.net/category/videos/

As you suggested I have been reading Wikipedia guidlelines; Quote 'However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work'., so since I know that it not in violation the below will apply;

There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites through external links or when citing sources. However, such links must abide by various policies and guidelines. Linking to such sites is often discouraged due to misuse. Copyright is of particular concern. Reliability of the uploader and video must always be established if the link is used as a source.

The Marshall Star material is up-loaded by the band (Marshall Star), and John Moore has endorsed the Expressway content. There's no copyright issues, it's 'free to air' There would be little possibility of verifying a person's involvement in bands such as this, due to their marginal or underground output, apart from official endorsed films of the period. They are therefore a valuable recourse in citing personal line-ups in groups from the 70's and 80's, and therefore need to be seriosuly considered in this instance. Actually Clive has had various aliases through his career, various names appearing on record releases, hence the need to have consistency through the page, otherwise there would be several references/names, and no-one would know who you were talking about. You say 'the subject is most recognized during their years of notability', but neither Parker or Clive or Parker-Sharp were these. Where did you get the information from to verify this source?

There's various grammatical errors on the page, which I am trying to address, but everytime you do an 'undo' you revert everything. Is it possible you can correct the things you are not happy with please rather than 'blanket'changes?

Thanks again CindyNinabrem (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the updates Cindy, I'll try and deal with them one-by-one, & I'll wait for your response; (1) 'From the age of nine, Parker played in local show bands and working men's club's.[citation needed]' the photograph is a working men's club band from 1975. Its highly unlikely there can be anything but photographic evidence left of this period since these bands were marginal to say the least. We can only go on the say-so of Parker, and witnesses, it being a standard stomping ground for up-coming musicians in the 1970's anyway. A photograph (part of Wikipedia's commons images) being solid evidence, otherwise what's the point of the creative commons photo's?. What else could this photo be?! The hair and clothes give it away. Thanks, look forward to hearing from you. Debbiereynolds (talk) 11:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Debbie, I'm going to preface this with stating that it will sound absolutely and totally ridiculous. Okay? Here goes the boilerplate message. We cannot use Wikipedia articles or files, in this regard, for sources of article content. The reasoning? Wikipedia, as a tertiary source is considered unreliable. I know, sounds strange. If the only information we can go on is word of mouth and witnesses, it is best not to include the content. Articles are supposed to be written "based on" external sources. The point is not to write an article and then hope to find information to add later, in support of the article. It's kinda putting the cart before the horse. On another note, there was a source offered from the NY Times that led to an invitation to buy a subscription. If you can find the actual source, we should be able to use that. We would need article title, author, publisher, page, and date of publication. Thanks,  Cind. amuse  12:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Cindy - we don't understand that 'boilerplate' thing here in England, anyway, its a fair comment. The point I am making though, is that the photograph up-loaded to Wiki commons images is the verifiable source. That was the original photo that originally started the Clive Parker page, showing that he started out in working men's club bands. That's how its verifiable, through a verifiable photgraphic record of the event.

The other issue, is the New York Times article. I bought it, ($4.75 !!), but then the link wouldn't work. I am trying to find out whether I can up-load it to Wiki commons images, so it can then be cited on the page. Unfortunately its hard to get any sense out of the images questions page - maybe you can answer that query? thanks again Debbiereynolds (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for warning Gandaf12 for me :) &mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 13:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think that deserves a cookie! 

Pyfan has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

The Signpost: 11 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I moved my article out of my sandbox
Hi Cindamuse, I have made some headway on my article on Human trafficking in Eastern Europe. I still have a ways to go, but I moved the article to the main wiki space at the request of my professor. If you have some time in the next couple of days, can you look over it to see if I am on the right track? I'd appreciate any feedback you have. Thank you. Jesswest (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! I would be honored to review your article.  Cind. amuse  01:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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) 13:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 22 April 2011
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Earl of Shaftesbury
For my part, I'm puzzled as to what you're talking about. Of course he was an heir - he was the eldest son of the 9th Earl, as the list indicated before you reverted it. That's why he had the courtesy title "Lord Ashley". And the reason he didn't inherit the title was that he died before his father - this is obvious from their respective dates of death. The other heirs didn't, and so they are listed - as Earls. And it is common practice - see Duke of Somerset, Duke of Richmond, Duke of Grafton, Duke of Beaufort, Duke of Bedford, and countless other articles, for this practice. The fact that something isn't listed in a guideline isn't a reason for reverting it, by the way. Proteus (Talk) 15:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * While Lord Ashley was an heir apparent, he was not an heir. An heir is one who inherits upon the death of another. It is inappropriate to refer to an individual as an heir, since the exact identity of the persons entitled to inherit are not determined until the time of death. A person only becomes an heir upon the death of the decedent, in this case, the 9th earl. When he died, the heir was determined in the earl's grandson, who subsequently became the 10th earl. By the way, Lord Ashley was not the only first born son in the Ashley-Cooper family that did not inherit. If you are going to include heirs apparent in the list of Earls of Shaftesbury, you may want to do some research and include a complete list. And then properly title the list. Another thing, the fact that other stuff exists, isn't a viable reason for keeping it. For the sake of consistency, it would support your assertion, if the inclusion of Lord Ashley list in the Earls of Shaftesbury article reflected the inclusion of other individuals in the same manner as the other articles have done.  Cind. amuse  22:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Help with a picture
Hi Cindamuse - I replied to your earlier post on my talkpage, but I have an additional question. I would like to use a photo that I found in wikimedia commons but I would like to crop it so that only Eastern Europe is visible. This is the link for what I did and here is the original file  The user is giving permission to alter the file as long as credit is given and the copyright permissions stay the same, but I can't figure out how to replicate the permissions that are listed on his page. I also don't have the "summary" section that he has on his page. Instead I have a file history, so I think I must have done something wrong. Can you help me or tell me how to fix this so that no one deletes my photo? I would like to be able to link it to my article as a thumbnail like I did with the original file. Thank you! Jesswest (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Jess, can you upload your derivative work to Commons? From there, you can simply use the permissions used by other derivative works to create applicable permissions for the new file. It's basically the same process over there for uploading here. Pretty user friendly. Let me know if you need help.  Cind. amuse  17:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I need help please. It appears to be just saving the picture over someone else's work because it was reverted to an "original file" and I'm not sure what I am doing wrong. Jesswest (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Upload it to Commons using the file name below. Let me know how this works.  Cind. amuse  21:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)




 * Thank you! That worked. Jesswest (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Chris Vaughn page
Thanks... I think i fixed it..the Chris Vaughn page. I am going to work on the format a bit on the film section to better fit the standard film sections of other articles. :) Creditcamp (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Happy Holiday!

Sorry what do you mean by " inclusion of self-published sources and cleanup " do you mean because I cut and pasted it from something i was building? Do I need someone else to cleanup for me? What is improper about references? is the pdf reference improper? is it necessary? I will work on it a bit tonight, thanks again! If so would you be willing or could you advise? Thanks so much sorry about removing tags, I thought I was allowed to remove tags after I edited them. Do I wait and have you do it? Creditcamp (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Were you able to review the policy and guideline links that I provided on your talk page? The specific policy on self-published sources can be found here. The guidelines for bringing an article into compliance with the Manual of Style can be found here. Guidelines for bringing biographies into compliance can be found here. Generally, I wouldn't hesitate to simply edit and address these issues directly. However, your editing history reveals that you are editing for a single purpose in order to promote the documentary and the individuals involved. When an editor appears to be personally invested in an exclusive topic or article, it can become disruptive going back and forth with others editing to bring the article into compliance, only to have those edits removed. Please review the links that I have provided. Maintenance tags can only be removed once the specific issue is appropriately addressed. If you need assistance, don't hesitate to contact me. I am more than happy to edit the article, but haven't wanted to "steal your thunder" or step on your toes. If you need help, holler.  Cind. amuse  01:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I am TOTALLY ready for you to just help me bring it BACK into compliance. Take it away, pal! It was in compliance last week, until i tried to updated it with more info. thanks!! Creditcamp (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey There, my page was totally wiped out and replaced by a different Chris Vaughn. Many of the references on my article had already been received, WHAT HAPPENED? How can this be fixed? Please help! Creditcamp (talk) 05:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Jasmine (American singer)


Re. (edits changing it both ways)

This is just a quick, friendly note to 3 people who've recently edited that specific portion - Djc wi, Michael Bednarek and Cindamuse

That article has, recently, been problematic - bordering on edit-war. (Sorry, some of you will already realise that - but I'm just being neutral in commenting here),

Therefore, please exercise great caution in editing and reverting - and if there are any problems at all, please discuss them on Talk:Jasmine (American singer) - especially before repeating edits.

I remain neutral and uninvolved; I'm just trying to avoid trouble - particularly, trying to avoid a need to 'protect' the article from editing.

Thank you for your understanding, all the best,  Chzz  ► 07:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting me. A closer look will reveal that there are no edit wars taking place on this article. An additional review will show that there has been discussion on the article with two editors working together with the third new editor User:Djc wi, to corporately bring the article into compliance. Working with these other editors has actually been a positive experience in community editing. Nothing problematic here, but appropriate, effective, and good faith edits on the part of all editors involved. Thanks again,  Cind. amuse  08:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cindamuse, yes, absolutely - I agree; that's fine, and good; I'm just trying to keep an eye on the article due to previous trouble, and to ensure everyone is aware of things. Cheers!  Chzz  ► 08:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. All well and good, but my focus, as well as that of User:Michael Bednarek has been to work with User:Djc wi and User:Jasminepedia to avert any edit wars. Neither Michael nor I have engaged in any edit wars, so the warning comes off a bit premature and unnecessary. Essentially, it appears that you are attempting to monitor the individuals that have been monitoring the article and the editors that have previously engaged in disruptive editing. Honestly, and with all due respect, it's just bit puzzling. Sincerely appreciate your work just the same.  Cind. amuse  09:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It was not, in any way, a 'warning'. It was, as it says, a "quick, friendly note". And if I had only put the note on the talk page of selected editors, that would have been biased of me. I'm totally neutral on the subject, and totally removed from it - in fact, I still have absolutely no clue who "Jasmine" actually is (nor any interest in her).  Chzz  ► 03:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly meant no offense by describing your note as a warning. I most definitely believe that you offered your note in good faith. That said, I sensed that your "quick, friendly note" was a gentle way of presenting a warning without using a template. And it's never been near to needing full protection. Your note left me puzzled. My bad. Warning, caution, heads up. It's all semantics and really it's no skin off my nose. I think in the future, rather than fearing biased action, just take a look at the history, assess both appropriate and inappropriate actions and address those specific editors accordingly, rather than lumping them all together. Just a thought. Honestly, I have no idea who Jasmine is either. I came upon the article when I was asked to review another article and an editor asked me to keep an eye on this one due to edit warring between three earlier individuals. You are honestly, no more removed from it than I am. So, it felt like you were coming late on the scene and monitoring the monitor. I was puzzled, that's all. I have no ill will toward you. Honestly, it's all good. ; )  Cind. amuse  05:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I certainly was not offended.
 * I did not see a reason to bother you with background details, originally, but allow me to elaborate;
 * The reason that I got involved was, Djc wi posted on ANI about the other user, then created an SPI for Jasminepedia, and then placed a help request here. In responding to the help request, I realised that CU would be inappropriate (for an IP editor), and that fundamentally, the dispute was over Jasmine (American singer), and thought if that could be resolved, further action (block, protection) would be unnecessary. The diffs that concerned me were.
 * Thus, at that time - without making any judgement over who was right or wrong - I cautioned both Djc wi and Jasminepedia  for edit-warring, asking them to discuss things on the talk page. Djc wi accepted the notice in good spirit  and from the ensuing discussion, I hoped the problems were resolved without the need for any further actions.
 * However, I continued to monitor the article, and when I saw the month of birth being flicked back and forth   I dropped those notes on the three user talks, to try to head off any potential escallation.
 * I hope that will now make more sense, and I'll be genuinely interested to know if you feel I acted appropriately.
 * Just to be perfectly clear: I am not criticising, complaining, defending myself, or objecting to anything at all that you have done. Just explaining background (which hitherto I didn't feel a need to bother you with), and wondering "how is my editing". Best,  Chzz  ► 00:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Aleanca Kuq e Zi
Hello Cindamuse. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Aleanca Kuq e Zi, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''Source one does perhaps indicate notability. Uncertain enough I think for it to need to go to AfD if necessary. .''' Thank you. Ged UK  19:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sajjad Shaheed-e-Bajaur
My page Sajjad Shaheed-e-Bajaur has been deleted on NOTABILITY reasons. I want to contest this.

My Point of View: The page is about a highly notable K.I.A (Killed In Action) Military Officer of Pakistan Army, Lt. Sajjad Khan, S.Bt (Military) who was posthumously awarded one of Pakistan's national military honour "Sitara-i-Basalat" meaning "Star of Bravery"..... He is widely known among the people of FATA and his notability is no issue as for as a 180 Million strong nation, Pakistan, is concerned...... If every "Tom, Dick and Harry" can be represented by a page on WIKIPEDIA then why not the HERO of a NATION...... The fact can be confirmed from the official website of Pakistan Army' Public Relations wing.... Also see following newspaper pages containing his name in the AWARD list. After the above discussion, I think I can request you to cancel the deletion and restore the article / page Sajjad Shaheed-e-Bajaur .... Thanx. Debajaur (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Debajaur
 * Thank you for contacting me. I realize this must be very frustrating for you. While I saw the article in question, I'm not actually the editor that deleted the article. I recommend that you contact User:Courcelles. He deleted the article because there was no indication that the article met the guidelines for inclusion. There were also concerns over copyright violations. You can find more information on the guidelines here and here. Overall, the article was not supported through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The sources provided included blogs, Facebook, and a press release, along with the following sources:
 * http://debajaur.blogspot.com/2011/04/lt-sajjad-shaheed-sbt-shaheed-e-bajaur.html (article is copied directly from this blog, violating copyright laws)
 * http://thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=26858&Cat=13&dt=1/24/2010 (doesn't mention the subject)
 * http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Regional/Islamabad/23-Mar-2011/President-confers-awards-on-mly-officers (only mentions the subject in a list of award recipients, along with 20 individuals.)

The Sitara-i-Basalat actually means the Star of Good Conduct. The Star of Bravery is the Sitara-i-Shujaat medal. The Sitara-i-Basalat is awarded to all ranks of the Pakistani military for valor, courage, or devotion to duty while not in combat. In any case, the topical notability criteria accepted by the community states that a soldier may be notable if s/he were awarded their nation's highest award for valour; or were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour multiple times. Unfortunately, the Sitara-i-Basalat is not recognized as the highest award for valour, or second-highest award. While this individual appears to have been an admirable person, the information presented about him does not meet the notability criteria. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  02:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Economics of Public Policy (Eugenia Toma)
I'm currently working on getting you a list of all the articles the students have been working on. I will have that for you as soon as possible. As for the timeline of the course, my training was 15-16 January. The Spring semester began 12 January. I began training the students the school week after training (i.e., the week beginning with 17 January). The course ends next week, 5 May. Starvinsky (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starvinsky (talk • contribs) 14:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much. Can you either drop the list in a subpage of the course page? That would probably work better than my talk page. As soon as I get the list, I'll start dropping templates and review each article to provide some feedback. Thanks again,  Cind. amuse  14:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Cindamuse/Googs
Just a short note to say that I came across User:Cindamuse/Googs a few days ago and I loved it. Nicely done. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion: Upon a Burning Body
Hi Cindamuse. Just letting you know, this did not qualify as an A7, as the band is signed to a notable label, and charted on Billboard Heatseekers. It might not be enough for clear notability, but it's enough to escape a speedy. Thanks, Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 15:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting me. That should have been a G4, rather than an A7. My bad. Thanks again.  Cind. amuse  22:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Dr. Michael Wolff


Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Dr. Michael Wolff. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Michael Wolff (Consulate-General of Austria). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Michael Wolff (Consulate-General of Austria) - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions.  Cind. amuse  14:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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) 09:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

changes to Hal Sparks entry
The changes made were initially to eliminate vandalism that has been present on the page for some time.. some information on the page was erroneous but a good deal was the result of intentional wiki graffiti. re: The original ZERO 1 band name being listed at (The Hal Sparks Band Part II: Electric Boogaloo) Most television credits were lifted from IMDB but some were added that were untrue or simply random and not germane to the body of work or work compilations formed of the artists work.

Radio info was incomplete and the times were wrong

ZERO 1 band info (all verifiable changes) are from the bands official booking page (www.reverbnation.com/zero1) All ZERO 1 info was out of date and much of it had been vandalized

details regarding Queer As Folk have been updated to include the depth of the work and elements of it's importance.

All links added are official

all the graffiti that has been on the page for some time has been there without any verification and yet the page continues to revert back to the false and in many cases intentionally misleading or mocking versions

Thanks for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5park5inc (talk • contribs) 19:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for contacting me. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is focuses on the verification of content. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately. Therefore, if you challenge content that is unsourced, by all means, feel free to remove that content. However, do not delete content by replacing it with a preferred, unsourced version. Irregardless of the comment made in your edit summary, verification is not redundant, but required. Please note that in order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make claims in the article or assert details about an individual's life or importance on a talk page – the article itself must document this content through independent and reliable sources, using an inline citation. Wikipedia takes the creation and editing of biographies of living persons very seriously. We must get the article right. To that end, we are very firm about the use of high quality sources. While the addition of questionable, unsourced content to articles may sometimes fall through the cracks, it does not justify a tit for tat addition of further unsourced content. Where you are challenging content, I would recommend at this point, that you present the contentious information on the article's talk page. If you are the subject of the article, there is a process for dealing with articles about yourself, where inaccurate information exists. You can find more information HERE. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  00:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand your wanting to maintain a verifiable source however in some cases that is impossible since there is no source that says something is not what it never was. There are several unsourced intentionally malicious elements on the page and their simple removal does not correct the problem. especially when they keep being RE-instated as facts...

thanks

p.s all the references that support the malicious content were sourced with dead links. there was no verification of those and yet they remained up unchallenged(5park5inc (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC))


 * The answer in this situation is stated above. While the addition of questionable, unsourced content to articles may sometimes fall through the cracks, it does not justify a tit for tat addition of further unsourced content. Where you are challenging content, I would recommend at this point, that you present the contentious information on the article's talk page. If you can list the specific statements or content in the article being challenged, I will be happy to remove that content from the article. If you can provide additional information that is referenced to reliable sources, again, I will be happy to add the content to the article. Due to the expressed conflict of interest, I recommend that you refrain from editing the article further in any capacity.  Cind. amuse  06:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Laura Bryna
Just letting you know I re-made Laura Bryna with more reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Dang, dude. Great work, although honestly, I'm not surprised. I sincerely appreciate the work that you do and the example you set. I'll pop over and add my recommendation. It comes to mind that an article about one of Bryna's recordings was recently deleted in AFD, partly as a result of the deletion of the Laura Bryna article. The article title was Trying to Be Me. Would you mind taking a second look at that article, since the artist's page was restored? Maybe it can also be salvaged.  Cind. amuse  02:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Trying to Be Me now redirects to Laura Bryna, since I didn't think there was quite enough content for a standalone article on the album — Bryna's article has the track listing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Please help assess articles for Public Policy Initiative research
Hi ,

Your work as an Online Ambassador is making a big contribution to Wikipedia. Right now, we're trying to measure just how much student work improves the quality of Wikipedia. If you'd like contribute to this research and get a firsthand look at the quality improvement that is happening through the project, please sign up to assess articles. Assessment is happening now, just use the quantitative metric and start assessing! Your help would be hugely appreciated!

Thank you, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello
And thanks for your welcoming words. Best! --Doktor Plumbi (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Rocket Girl Label
Hello there, Thanks for taking an interest and wanting to help out. I have now taken onboard some of the points youve made, and also have checked other similar record label wiki pages, just to make sure Rocket Girl follows standards. I agree with you, the -biography- heading is unecessary, as it would be more fitting for a single individual. As for inline citations and 3rd party cross-reference, I have now included the -singles book reference - and have also included a -BBC- interview, which I believe is a reliable enough source. It is obviously a work in progress, and I shall endeavour to add as many sources and citations, as my research progresses. Thanks for your help, the page I believe, has been improved. cheers. sonicbamboy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonicbamboy (talk • contribs) 01:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting me. I'll respond on the article's talk page. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  02:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Bangladeshi Poets in Facebook
hi Cindamuse, yup you're right, should have been a7. thanks -- The Elves Of Dunsimore (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's all good. I honestly doubt that it's long for this world under either criteria. LOL  Cind. amuse  08:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Declined speedy on Adam C. Boyd
Hi, I've declined the CSD-A7 on this article... there's a credible assertion of significance in the statement that he had a career with the Philadelphia Eagles. I don't particularly agree with the criteria listed at WP:ATH, but he appears to satisfy the notability criteria if he played a single game with them. I've BLP PROD'ed the article for the time being. Cheers,  Catfish Jim  &#38; the soapdish  12:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey CJ! Thanks for giving me the heads up. I removed the BLP PROD. While poorly formatted, the article had two references. I reformatted as external links. I also sent the article for deletion discussion. It can be found here if you want to add your recommendation. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  21:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi... Good call... It occurred to me that the career in question may not have been as a player, but AGF and all that... cheers,  Catfish Jim  &#38; the soapdish  21:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion Roscoff Restaurant
A Michelin starred restaurant without indication of importance? Sorry to say, but you must be kidding! Eddylandzaat (talk) 03:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting me. I agree with the sentiment above. My bad. While "significance" and "importance" are both subjective, I should have sent it for deletion discussion. I jumped the gun a bit, I suppose. At this point, I've placed some maintenance templates, which indicate the current needs of the article. While the restaurant received a star from the Michelin Guide, this does not confer notability in accordance with the topical guidelines. We don't have blanket notability for restaurants recognized by any particular restaurant guide, including Michelin, Zagat, Harden’s, or Forbes. A restaurant is considered notable ‘’if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources’’. This is where the article lacks. I have not been able to find significant coverage outside of restaurant guides and reviews. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. In-depth coverage is simply lacking. One source encompasses inclusion in a list, another one independent and reliable, and a third is a restaurant guide that reviews the restaurant that replaced the Roscoff Restaurant after it closed down. At this point, I would work on establishing notability through the presentation of significant reliable and independent sources. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  23:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To be true, I felt disgusted and insulted by the templates. They came so soon after the declined speedy deletion request that I assumed them to be revenge templates! But My76Strat cooled me down and on his advice I have added quite a number of references. Dodgy and unhandy wording is possible. English is not my first language and only recently I moved over from the Dutch to the English WP. Not everything works the same. If you have more comments on my restaurant articles (see my userpage), please put your comments on my talk page. The templates are absolutely horrible. After I have finished the series (4 restaurants to go), I will rework all restaurants based on your comments and to add extra references. Eddylandzaat (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah, revenge is not my style. You were on target with your opposition to the speedy deletion. I was the one that was a bit off. Throughout my "life" on Wikipedia, I have found that I learn the most, from my mistakes. The purpose in placing the maintenance templates is wholly to indicate areas in the article that need addressing for compliance. Rather than a slap on the wrist, the templates serve as guidance, support, and direction. To that end, I made some clarification of the issues on the article talk page. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have questions or need help any time (unless I've scared you off!) I'm more than happy to assist in any capacity. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  00:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello! thanks! how...
i created an article and although i got the message that it needed to be reviewed by someone else ... i can't find it to edit the references. Could that have been deleted?

thanks, egaion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egaion (talk • contribs) 08:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia! Was the article Andrea Moller: Waterwoman? If so, it was moved to Andrea Moller. There isn't another article named Andrea Moller, so we didn't need to disambiguate. I don't think the article has any specific issues that would warrant deletion. At this point, just a good cleanup, copyedit, restructuring, and making sure to verify content through the addition of inline citations. Please feel free to contact me if you need help or have any questions.  Cind. amuse  08:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Birthright Armenia
Hello Cindamuse. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Birthright Armenia, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 01:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Send to AfD? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I was thinking as well. It's just not G11-eligible because it's not unambiguously promotional. Logan Talk Contributions 02:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed the promotional content, which in the end was a copyvio and close paraphrasing of the organization's website. At this point, while the article lacks sufficient inline citations, it looks like notability may be met through the general notability guidelines. In my opinion, the organization may meet the topical notability guidelines as an international nonprofit corporation. That said, it needs proper sourcing.  Cind. amuse  04:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Radio Sandwell
Just a quick note to let you know that I removed the speedy deletion template you placed on Radio Sandwell because. The article, brief as it is, is written in entirely neutral language and does not qualify for G11 deletion.

Please be aware that is normally inappropriate re-add a speedy deletion template when another editor (other than the creator of the article) has removed it, because speedy deletion is only for uncontroversial deletions. If you believe the article still needs to be deleted, please consider WP:PROD or WP:AFD which can be used for deletions which are not covered by the speedy deletion criteria.

I am not an administrator and I do not have any special authority in this matter. If you feel that I have made a mistake, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.

Thparkth (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for contacting me. I've gone ahead and sent the article for deletion discussion. That said, I would recommend that you revise your template in consideration of your audience. The statement, "Please be aware that [it] is normally inappropriate [to] re-add a speedy deletion template when another editor (other than the creator of the article) has removed it, because speedy deletion is only for uncontroversial deletions," is not exactly assuming good faith on the part of your fellow editors. Another heads up that an article may be entirely promotional, while presented in a neutral tone. Mere publicity, promotion, and advertising need not reference sales or reviews pertaining to the quality or feasibility of the subject of the article. Simply announcing the existence of a subject devoid of importance or significance would be considered inappropriate and oftentimes promotional. Take for example, external link spam. Promotional. Now consider or compare that spam link with an article merely presenting their web address and where you can find them on the frequency dial. Spam. And there we have Radio Sandwell. Hope this helps. Feel free to contact me if you have questions or need assistance. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  06:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The wording of my template is unfortunately necessary in many cases, because editors who misunderstand the speedy deletion criteria often misunderstand the rest of the process too. I apologize if it seemed to assume bad faith; it was meant to be better than that "pat on the head" patronizing wording of the standard csd-decline template "Thanks for patrolling new pages, !" which I find particularly grating. To address your specific comment about this case, the explicit wording of WP:CSD says that "an article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." I disagree that the mere inclusion of an external link automatically renders an article non-NPOV, and I'm quite certain that your interpretation of G11 is at odds with consensus in this case. As far as taking the article to AFD is concerned, I will have to consider how to !vote myself there, but per WP:OUTCOMES there seems to be a strong supposition that licensed radio broadcasters who originate their own programming are notable. (A community radio station in the UK is not like a Part 15 restricted license in the USA - this broadcaster has a potential audience of at least a half million people.) Thparkth (talk) 10:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It may be advantageous to consider your audience when you place your template. You're essentially trading "patronizing" for "assumption of bad faith". While this may not be your intent, it's certainly not assuming good faith, is it? You are assuming that other editors will disregard your removal of the CSD tag and replace it with another. While it may be necessary for new editors, it comes across rather presumptuous on the part of experienced editors. Especially when you are working with others that may have quite a bit more experience and/or knowledge than you may have. You may also want to revise your template to accurately define the CSD process, which is not reserved for uncontroversial deletions. On the contrary, they are often controversial. You're thinking of PRODs, which are used for uncontroversial deletions. On another note, you may want to review the actual guidelines for broadcast media, rather than relying on an essay. FWW, I'm in agreement with the G11 criteria that you stated above. I never stated that inclusion of an external link renders an article "non-NPOV". I'm not concerned with POV in the article. The article is clearly not a POV issue. The issue was one of a promotional nature, which is quite different from a point of view. They are separate issues. I think you're muddying the waters a tad. I would invite you to revisit what I wrote above. Something was definitely lost during translation. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  13:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Uncontroversial" is a bit of an over-simplification, it's true, but it is the case that all speedy deletions must be obvious, objective and incontestable. I promise you that I am not "thinking of PRODs". I will think about how to reword my template in light of your comments! Thparkth (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)