User talk:Cindamuse/Archive 15

Ellwand
Done  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  05:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

please restore ... as user page at least ... thank you!
RIGHT! What's all this then?!? (Monty Python ref) One of your bobbies clubbed my page to death without reading the content of my contest (below). Please dig my page up out of the mass grave or drag it out of the pile and restore it ... as a user page, at least ... thank you!

vvvvvvvvv | content of my contest | vvvvvvvvvv This page should not be speedy deleted because... --Democracy207 (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC) while it references the page specific to the Mayoral election, this page goes beyond it to the broader context of the general election which deserves its own article and does not yet have one ... for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_general_elections,_November_2011

While I sincerely appreciate diligence and vigilance in protecting the integrity of Wikipedia, in all honesty, my experience in the brief time since I have begun participating as an editor borders on inappropriately rapid vigilanteism! The key to the success of the Wikipedia phenomenon, co-equal with conscientious discipline & maintenance of integrity, is the social culture which grows the community of editors & users and cements the strength & long-term sustainability of Wikipedia as an historic institution contributing mightily to the development a global culture of humanity, by humanity, and for humanity! As a community organizer and a father, I understand the burden of leadership - especially real & true leaders who care deeply about their responsibility and its vital importance. Add to this the volume of the work given Wikipedia's popularity, and this equation yields harsh, terse communication. However, if we include a growth factor from positive socio-emotional dynamics, then the community grows and the burden per editor eases, thus strengthening Wikipedia. I have carefully read the "speedy deletion" criteria and it does not apply. I have made most of the improvements I had originally intended to make. Upon careful review of the page, it should be clear that it stands alone by itself. The other races deserve inclusion and citizens deserve the ease of access to information afforded by Wikipedia - its very essence. I find myself wondering, was the "speedy deletion" tag automated? I promptly contested the tag with my reasons. I have received no feedback. I know you are busy. I am clearly working to learn the rules & practices. I have improved the page and expanded my response to the "speedy deletion" tag. I would hope to hear back soon! thank you! Democracy207 (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I want to thank you for contacting me, part of me is screaming, "Run away! Run Away!" (Monty Python). Sorry, I couldn't resist! LOL I realize that the deletion of your article must be frustrating. In all reality, once an article is flagged for deletion, the page may be deleted at any time, if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation posted to the talk page is found to be insufficient. While I personally don't agree with this, no response from the deleting administrator is required. I have to be honest, I read your rationale on the talk page and fully expected the administrator to agree and simply move the article to a proper title. He must have seen something that I didn't. I apologize for any frustration that may have resulted from my initial flagging of the article. That said, please go to the talk page of the editor that deleted your article. Here is a link: Fastily. Make your petition known there. In all sincerity, while the humor is welcome, I would suggest saving all the rhetoric and simply request that the editor userfy your article. When you are finished with your article, contact him again for feedback before considering moving the article to the mainspace. Anything less may end in the same result as this last version. If you need additional assistance or have questions, please feel free to contact me. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  13:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:David Ellwand by Andrew Sanderson.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:David Ellwand by Andrew Sanderson.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * An email containing details of the permission for this file has been sent in accordance with WP:OTRS. Thanks for your work just the same. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  05:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey again~
Hi Sorry for writing after such a long while and all; I feel really bad, considering you willingly adopted me. But..uh..the reason may sound..really ridiculous But I kinda..forgot how to write on users' talk pages..sorry! And then, some things came up so I couldn't be as active as I would have liked to be.. That said, I would like to be quite active on Wikipedia now. So, I think, firstly, I should start by..making my User page? But I'm kind of confused as to what exactly should I write in that. I mean, I know it has to be about me- of course- but I've read yours and it's quite interesting :) You seem very practical :) Aurora Glory Paradise (talk) 11:38, 27 June 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) 12:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
ukexpat (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify Discussion Invitation
 Sumsum2010 · T · C  23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Name search
I am inquiring regarding the Armenian Volunteer Corps. The acronym AVC was recently removed from the English page, but when people search for it, the Armenian volunteer units always seems to come up first. Is there a way to either change this so that at least both pages show up first? Or if there is some way around this? Please le tme know at your earliest convenience. Amg921 (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting me. The article was inadvertently linked to Armenian volunteer units, when users entered the lower case Armenian Volunteer Corps. It has now been fixed to route to Armenian Volunteer Corps. Let me know if you have other questions. Thanks.  Cind. amuse  03:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Razavipoor paradox
some helpful discussions were held on DISCUSSION part of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salirp (talk • contribs) 10:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above referenced article has been nominated for deletion due to a lack of notability established through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article has been presented to the community for discussion to determine whether or not it will be kept or deleted from the encyclopedia. You are welcome to participate in this discussion. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions. Thanks,  Cind. amuse  10:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you hold off on CSD's for a moment while I write a response?
Thanks! -- Gnowor TC 08:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The subpage articles in your userspace were flagged for deletion due to unambiguous advertising or promotion. Wikipedia is not a webhost for drafting articles in preparation to submit to forums outside of Wikipedia. Please review What Wikipedia is not, What Wikipedia is not, and User pages Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.  Cind.  amuse  09:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (Per your offer at my talk page, this falls more under the category of venting as opposed discussion, as I've decided to delete all similar offending content.)
 * As indicated in my post at WP:RPP, and the notice at the top of the page, I understand the communities concerns. Here are the frustrations:
 * Initial user that raised these concerns pointed to WP:SPAM which is inapplicable to userspace content (as I understand it).
 * Initial user did not provide any notification of modification to my userspace. Had the user brought this to my attention before or after the modifications, I think the situation could've gone entirely different.
 * I posted a notice at the top of the page, the full text of which indicates I myself may believe there's a policy violation, but I'm unaware of the particular policy. At least three users disregarded this notice, and preferred a destructive edit as opposed to dialog.
 * I was in the process of trying to offer removal of outside links & phone numbers (per above link to WP:RPP) to avoid potential violation.
 * I was once part of this destructive editing myself (through the use of Huggle).
 * I feel my most productive work has been on Huggle. And this incident shows me how even a veteran user might react to the "click-of-a-button" mentality that members of the community use when trying to preserve the encylopedia.  User's could put a lot of time and thought and even consider policy, and all of that can be undone by the click of a button.  And fighting for it may be more than it's worth for some users.  It is for me.
 * I used to love using all the vandalism and CSD tools at my disposal, but the speed at which they allow us to react to split second decisions about content can have some rather awful effects. I hope the community at some point reconsiders the use of these tools and also policies like WP:BRD.  I feel like I know the outcome of this discussion, which is one of the reasons I'm halting further discussion.  I doubt most first-time editors to Wikipedia know where talk pages are, or even where history pages are inviting discussion.  They just see the mysterious disappearance of their edit.
 * When an edit is well-intentioned, but violates policy, the community reacts to it in the same way as vandalism (e.g. revert, or CSD). The same tools we use to chase of vandals chase off editors.  Like myself.
 * I appreciate you reaching out to me, and I have requested copies of the deleted content. I've also requested deletion of the remaining pages from my attempt to perhaps not help the Wikipedia, but instead help the world. I realize that's not the purpose of this project, nor is it welcome here.
 * P.S. I thank you for opening a dialog, but unfortunately, it falls under "too little, too late."  Your comments on my talk page seem to indicate you stopped reading at "this may violate policy."  I thought this notice invited dialog, but apparently it only provided ammo for CSD.  Rather than pointing it out to me and giving me a chance to respond, I got ambushed by a CSD attack (note, a check of my contribs might have shown that I would've been likely to respond quickly, as I had just made a recent edit regarding the topic).  I would have hoped that common courtesy would allow a reasonable period for users to justify userpage content and make appropriate edits to resolve policy concerns.  Again, "delete first, ask questions later" is not a principle I can uphold. -- Gnowor TC 16:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 10:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Carnegie Library (Peabody, Kansas)
When do you plan to rename all the other Carnegie library articles to conform to this format? There are numerous ones that haven't been changed. • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  •  17:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just one at a time, as they cross my path. Millions of stuff to edit and not enough time to do it all. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  11:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Kathleen Cody/DYK
I nominated your article Kathleen Cody for Did You Know, but the editors there expressed some concerns regarding the nomination. If you're interested, you can see the discussion here. Gamaliel (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am on my way out of town right now, but will check the notes later. Please make any changes as you see fit. I don't consider it my article, but encountered it during NPP. There are sourcing issues, along with editing by the subject. I would suggest taking a look at it closely and making sure sourcing is independent of the subject. I was sidetracked due to illness and haven't been able to get back to it. Feel free to go to town on it and make any changes necessary. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  22:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Calling your attention to section #150 in your talk page
Hi Cindy, can I request you to look into my edits to article Bhagwan Gopinath in response to your pointers and questions I have posted on your talk page. I have been waiting for your response since June 29. Hope you can spare some time! Regards.. Sharda Mandir (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm traveling now, but took a quick look. The article still needs quite a bit of work, that honestly comes with experience. Extensive copy editing to address and remove POV and peacock terms, along with Manual of Style compliance pertaining to italics and justification. I'll be back next week and will take a closer look. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  11:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Really appreciate your feedback. Not sure if you noticed, but I tried working on removing some peacock terms myself in addition to fixing the NPOV/POV to some extent. Call it work in progress, but hey, when stalwarts like you are talking, am all ears! Let me know what you think...Many Thanks, Best R, Sharda Mandir (talk) 05:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Mentor?
Hi Cindamuse - I'm looking for a mentor and hoping you might have time for me. I see we both have an interest in organizations so perhaps once I get into my course more (which will have me editing and adding articles), I could possibly contribute to some of your areas of interest... Japson88 (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Japson88 Japson88 (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey there! I would be happy to work with you. Don't hesitate to contact me anytime you have a question or concern. Otherwise, I just sit here bored. Seriously, contact me either on my talk page or through email. Glad to have you here!  Cind. amuse  07:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! First of all, I wasn't able to find you again - I have looked at so many pages. But managed to find it through lots of searching. I have had a hard time getting anything started. Right now, I am looking to do a bit of work on the CWUAA page. My first attempt will be to link the RESQ to the QSSF page. These two acronyms represent the same page but RESQ is the french name for sport division. I'd like to link the page to the English QSSF page. I hope this is the right thing to do..

DYK for Kathleen Cody (actor)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 10 July 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) 18:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Cindamuse!!!
Hey Cindamuse! Hope all is well! Thank you so much for fixing and creating clarity to the article I created. Thanks!! Jamesallen2 (talk) 07:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a problem! Welcome to Wikipedia... Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or need assistance anytime. Sorry that it took so long for someone to get to your request for feedback. Hope you're having fun! Best regards,  Cind. amuse  07:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I also wanted to ask you could I change "he is known for his slap, tap, and pop style" to "he is known for his upside down slap and pop style" (this is located in the introductory section of the article). Is it ok with you if I make that small alteration?
 * Sure thang. Not a problem. Have fun with it!  Cind. amuse  08:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello from the Boston airport
Hello CindAmuse, I am waiting for a plane and wanted to say hello. It was good to meet you in Boston, and I look forward to collaborating with you next semester on the Wikipedia in Higher Education project. Wishing you the best. Cullen328 (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It was an honor and pleasure meeting you! I look forward to working with you more here on Wikipedia in our everyday editing, as well as through the WPHIED project. Comrades in arms. When I arrived home, I found three more students from Edmonton, requesting me as ambassador. Looks like I'm here for the duration. Let me know if you're ever looking for more mentees! I hope you had a safe and pleasant flight home. I ended up missing a connection in Denver and had to wait for nine hours for the next flight. I received humble apologies, along with an escort to the special services lounge, which was decked out with food, drinks, recliners, massive amounts of reading material, and a 70" big screen television with a large selection, including newly released movies. (There were also rooms to sleep, but I didn't opt for that.) I'm honestly still trying to recover. LOL. Best regards, Cindy  Cind. amuse  22:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the Denver delay, but at least you were treated well. We hit some wicked turbulence about halfway across country, which I described on Drmies (under Mrs. Cullen) and GorillaWarfare's talk pages. Very frightening . As for mentees, just send them my way.  I love to help. Cullen328 (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Jim! I'm so sorry your flight was less than smooth sailing! It must have been very frightening. I'm sure your wife was grateful that she had you by her side. And I'm happy that you are both safe. As far as mentees, feel free to contact Greg, at User:Strobe z. If you are open to another, Darrell at User:Dazzpedian could also use some help. Let me know either way, so I can keep track of who still needs mentors. Thanks so much. And again, I'm glad you and your wife are both home safe. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  23:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Cindamuse
Thank you for your willingness to offer guidance as I navigate and learn how to contribute to the Wikipedia community in a productive manner. I am in the process of determining which topic areas I can contribute in a meaningful way ... I will be in touch when I need guidance! Thanks again & look forward to working with you.--4tiggy (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Very good! Please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns you may have. Again, welcome to Wikipedia! We are glad you're here.  Cind. amuse  23:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Cindamuse......need your review!!!
Hey cindamuse! I just added a reference I recently found and I need to know is it a "good enough" reference for the article? The reference is about the "readymade bass". Please let me know! Thanks again for your help. Jamesallen2 (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey there, the source actually fails Wikipedia's verifiability policy. See THIS LINK for the policy, which specifically addresses self-published sources. I recommend looking for a better source,  Cind. amuse  02:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Casey Anthony
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Casey Anthony. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

summit
Cindy, I'm soooo sorry we didn't get to hang out at the summit; I was really looking forward to meeting you. Perhaps we'll have another chance to meet down the road some time. Thanks for coming, and thanks for being a great ambassador!--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm sure we'll catch each other next time. We'll just have to make a point of it. Add it to the agenda. Tie a ribbon around our fingers. Whatever works! Hope you have a great weekend! *And thanks for the encouragement!  Cind. amuse  09:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Requests_for_adminship/N5iln
Hi! I think you meant "account creator" instead of "article creator" in your question. I've fixed it for you so as not to confused the candidate.--v/r - TP 13:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I did! Thanks so much for catching that. Do you know if there can be a reasonable explanation for a name missing from a list of approved user rights? I'm really curious and puzzled about that. I'm thinking it may be possible that a simple step was overlooked. Thanks again!  Cind. amuse  13:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The user doesn't have the account creator flag at all. I checked the user rights log and they have never had that right.  I am assuming they create accounts without it up to the 6/day limit.--v/r - TP 13:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There has been a bit of confusion, here, I fear: Alan's userbox indicates that he has acces to the English Wikipedia internal account creation interface, not to the account creator flag; and he was indeed a member of the team, until he was suspended due to inactivity. Hope this helps. Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 14:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Salvio! I figured there had to be a reasonable explanation. That said, I think you may be confusing userboxes. Alan's userbox doesn't actually indicate that he has access to the English Wikipedia Internal Account Creation Interface. That would be a separate userbox, i.e., Template:User wikipedia/acctoolserveruser. The userbox that he placed, according to the WP:ACCRIGHTS page, states that the box is for displaying accountcreator rights. The template page for the box, used provides a link for a list of the approved users, under which Alan's account is not listed. It's kinda confusing when you click "verify" on the userbox and nothing comes up. It appears from what you are saying above, that Alan should have actually placed this template, rather than the one he currently has on his userpage, then removed it when the use was suspended. All very puzzling. I appreciate your input just the same.  Cind. amuse  14:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, actually; having only clicked on "Account Creator status" and seeing that it linked to the tool, I assumed it was a different version of Template:User wikipedia/acctoolserveruser and of Template:User wikipedia/ACC, because all users of the tool are called "account creators", even though they do not technically have the account creator flag, which can be confusing... Salvio  Let's talk about it! 14:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Crystalate
Hello Cindamuse. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Crystalate, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi John, thanks for contacting me. Please share more information. The article presents two subjects, which are not synonymous. One subject is a polymer compound, while the other subject is a manufacturing company. These are two separate entities. Can you let me know how you identified the subject of the article? Thanks,  Cind. amuse  09:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article is about both the substance and the company, but I don't see a problem with that - they are closely related. The author says on the talk page that it may be split into two articles eventually, but at the moment that would be pointless. WP:CSD is meant only for "very short articles" where you really can't tell what they're about. JohnCD (talk) 10:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think "very short" is rather subjective. Yet, based on your comment, what is the subject of this article? And why would splitting this article be pointless, while presenting two subjects in one article deemed appropriate? Please share your rationale. Thanks,  Cind. amuse  10:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Lacking additional information, I went ahead and moved the article to a title reflecting the organization, with a section on the product. If an editor wants to create a separate article about the product, it can be done at another time. In my opinion, an article presenting two separate subjects is clearly pointless. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  11:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The A1 test is, can you tell what the article is about? In the example given in WP:CSD, "He is a funny man with a red car. He makes people laugh" the answer is, no. In this case, the answer is, yes: it's about a substance and about the company of the same name that made it. I do not see any problem in covering two closely-linked subjects in the same article. "Very short" is subjective, agreed, but this is over 150 words. The deeper question underlying any speedy is, would the encyclopedia certainly be improved by deleting this without further discussion? and again, the answer here is, no. JohnCD (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I sincerely appreciate the feedback. That said, please note that nothing in the article states that the company created the substance. On the contrary, the article states that they use the substance (created and patented by American inventor George Henry Burt) in their products. Nothing to indicate that they make the substance. Nothing in the article stated that the two subjects were related outside of a company using a specific substance to create their products. No more; no less. It's not enough that they use the name of the substance in the company name. Many companies use the word "Plastics" in their corporate name, yet there is no indication that by doing so, they are stating that they invented the polymer compound (plastic). Recognizing the subject of the article in this regard is based on mere assumption, rather than the presentation of facts. I'm looking at articles with fresh eyes. Assumption doesn't enter into it. On another note, whether or not 150 words is very short, short, or long... is also subjective. In any regards, I agree that I should have chosen to discuss this with the article creator to ascertain intentions. At this point, the article resides at Crystalate Manufacturing Company. If an article about the substance is desired, the creator can appropriately spin it off from the company's article, supported by proper sourcing. Thanks,  Cind. amuse  15:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I came across this discussion. Cindamuse, you were overzealous with speedy deletion in this case. It's only for unambiguous cases, and quite obviously the company made the product and there was ample context to identify the subject of the article. Please don't go looking for reasons to delete articles unless absolutely necessary. Fences  &amp;  Windows  12:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly appreciate your input, but stating that I was overzealous is stretching it a bit. It is recommended that A1 CSDs are held off for at lease 10-15 minutes. I came upon this article an hour after creation. I've never been known to go looking for reasons to delete articles. The article as created clearly attempted to present two separate subjects, as confirmed by the creator on the talk page. Based on the article's two subjects, the intended topic of this particular article was rather ambiguous. I don't believe that there was ample context to identify the intended subject of the article. The creator even stated as such, that the article covered two subjects, i.e, a polymer compound and a company that makes products with that compound. The subject could have been the polymer compound, with a list of companies that use the compound in their products; or the article could have been about a company that subsequently uses the compound in their products. The two subjects are not synonymous. The article unambiguously fell within the A1 criteria for speedy deletion. Again, I appreciate your input here, but I disagree with your assessment of the situation. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  13:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to concur with JohnCD and Fences. This stub was  about the trademark "Crystalate", as it stated this outright, and that this trademark applied both to the plastic brand Crystalate and to the manufacturer Crystalate Ltd. (among other, longer names; now a separate article) and made it clear that they were not entirely synonymous.  Innumerable articles are written like this unless and until there is sufficient material and sources to maintain separate articles on the trademarked product/service and the similarly or identically named trademark-holding (or -licensing) company that produces it (e.g. the New York Times and the New York Times Company). Instead of arguing further that you were all in the right in tagging this for speedy deletion, maybe reconsider, since you're being told otherwise by three other editors now.  Since it obviously really, really bugged you that the article could be split into two topics but hadn't been, you could have done the work to split the article yourself, or tagged it with split, rather than attempting to destroy it. PS: The original stub was not about Crystalate as a substance; sources have yet to be found that even identify it on that level, though the U.S. Patent databases are a good place to start. It was about the trademark. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 21:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm not troubled by this at all. I welcome the dialogue as a natural process of collaborative editing. As stated above, the article made no mention of which company owned the trademarks, leaving the assumption to the reader. It also didn't link the two organizations outside of the name differential. I agree, the subjects were not entirely synonymous, as I clearly stated above. I am really not arguing anything. It's a mere conversation involving again, collaborative editing. While voice inflection cannot be determined online, please know that I'm not phased, concerned, or troubled in the slightest. Really, it's all good. As far as doing the work myself per WP:SOFIXIT, please note that I did in fact, work to "fix it", by splitting the article, in order to differentiate between the two subjects. I intentionally moved the article about the organization to a target presenting such, in order to allow you to present the content about the polymer in the Crystalate article space. I simply deferred to you in this regard. It would have been inappropriate of me to do a copy/paste of the content that you provided in order to create a second article. The move that I performed split the article appropriately. After all is said and done, I agree with JohnCD above in stating that discussion would have been appropriate in this case. Please accept my apology in failing to do so. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  21:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what's going on. The confusion on my side of the internet is a result of the ambiguous writing shown in the run-on sentence. i.e.,
 * "Crystalate is an old brand name for early plastics, and the company that owned that trademark (and derived ones like Super Crystalate)."


 * should be edited to either:


 * 1. Crystalate is an old brand name for early plastics, as well as the company that owned the trademark, (along with derivatives, like Super Crystalate). or
 * 2. Crystalate is an old brand name for early plastics. It is also the name of the company that owned the trademark, as well as products like Super Crystalate, from which it is derived.  Cind. amuse  22:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and I'm not here to bicker. I think why this turned into a long multi-party debate is that you didn't go the SOTFIXIT route initially, but the deletion one, which you seem to realize wasn't the optimal choice; and judging by just the recent, unarchived stuff on your talk page, you have quite a number of rejected SD taggings, suggesting that your take on the criteria needs to be adjusted more generally, that's all. You seem to find this or that to be "unambiguously" in support of your view in various of these discussions, yet the fact that a critical discussion is happening in them at all means that it pretty much by definition isn't unambiguous. "It's subjective" is your other common response; well, everything about Wikipedia is subjective, us being humans and not machines. It's not a particularly helpful response to concerns raised. Hope this helps. I'm not attempting to foment a big argument, but rather to help you forestall some future ones. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 17:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In order to provide a thorough assessment of my CSD tagging, please feel free to view my CSD log anytime. While my goal on Wikipedia is to never arrive, but rather progress through the learning curve, I am confident in my abilities. While I don't patrol NP quite as often as in the past year, you will note that the percentage of declined tags shown in the log is relatively small, with clear rationale when kept. The term subjective, simply refers to rule by consensus, based not on set rules, but personal opinion. Together, we're not wrong or right, but just share a different point of view. I respect your opinions. Really, it's all good. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  00:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Well, this is getting kind of stale, and the article in question has long since changed in ways making this particular case moot, but I still have to observe that I think your responses like "Honestly, I'm not troubled by this at all" and "Really, it's all good", here and in many similar threads, suggest that you're just missing the point. , as in people , are troubled and don't find that it's all good, and are saying so, but it doesn't seem to affect you in any way, shielded by your "confiden[ce] in [your] abilities".  It's instructive that the rejected SDs mostly follow a clear pattern. Confidence is good here, generally and within limits; don't get me wrong.  But so is common sense. I'm sure the vast majority of your patrolling is helpful; the fraction that isn't is predicable in how it isn't, ergo easily addressable. That's all. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 22:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting me again. That said, I simply don't internalize issues of discrepancy and error on Wikipedia. It's clear that you do. This is not healthy. (Not that that may matter.) There are discrepancies all over the encyclopedia. There are bound to be errors. I've stated mine above. I learn from incidents such as these and move on. I have apologized above, for my failure to discuss your intentions with the article, before placing the CSD tag. I apologize that this incident has troubled you. In all sincerity, I would recommend that you set this behind you and move forward, as others have done. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  01:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding a proposed edit
Good evening, Cindamuse. I have placed a comment on a proposed word change on the discussion page of Talk:femininity - Clothing section. To date no other editors of the page have responded to my discussion. Am I correct that after a few days, if no response is received from the editors working on this topic it is proper etiquette to go ahead with my proposed change?--4tiggy (talk) 02:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Cindamuse, I think I will just go ahead with the proposed edit and see what the editors of the page think--4tiggy (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I wasn't able to respond sooner. (Migraine day.) That said, I think you handled it perfectly. And I completely agree with your rationale. Good catch with that edit. No idea why "racist" was there. Anytime you think something like this should be done, be bold and make the edit. If another editor reverts your change, bring it to the talk page for discussion and allow others to weigh in on the rationale for the edit. It looks like you're doing a great job!  Cind. amuse  00:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * no worries, hope you are feeling better ...migraines are no fun:(  Thank you for your support and if I have Q's that I can't work out on my own, I will ask!--4tiggy (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcome
Just a quick note to thank you for the welcome message. I've taken the radical step of joining up with the GOCE, though I may initially stick with the backlog - it seems to need doing, and isn't that the point? I have reached out for some mentoring there, but also hope I can call on you and the larger community once I get stuck in more complex work. Prairiedog2011 (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for helping out at Requests for feedback. Two comments:
 * 1) Despite our advice that editors should check back here fro advice, typical editors are new, and may not read and memorize everything. I try to use talkback templates, especially when the feedback occurs days after the request, and the editor may have been checking but gave up. I've taken the liberty of providing talkbacks in the two cases where I saw you give feedback.
 * 2) Based upon your feedback in Requests_for_feedback, you might be interested in commenting here--  SPhilbrick  T  16:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey there! Thank you so much for contacting me. I appreciate the feedback. Thanks for adding the talkback for those requests. Please don't hesitate to contact me any time you see something wonky or questionable that I've done. I value the feedback. And I'll be sure to check out those links. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  02:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A pie for you!

 * Thanks! While the content is a duplicate of the My Babysitter's a Vampire (TV series) article, I would just the same, encourage you to create the article in a subpage of your userspace. Just keep an eye on anything that you see in the press that could be added to the article. Make sure not to include tweets as a reference, since they don't meet the threshold for reliability. When more information becomes available, it would be entirely appropriate to move a well-sourced article to the mainspace. Happy editing! Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 13:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

4tiggy seeking your guidance
Hi Cindamuse, hope all is well! I have created a User:4tiggy/sandbox page. In this space I have drafted a brief new article: Digital Immigrant. I picked this topic because on the Wikipedia article for Marc Prensky, the term digital immigrant was a redlink. If you have the time, could you please have a look. I found it challenging to present information in syntax that maintained a NPOV. Thanks, I would appreciate any & all feedback.--4tiggy (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback, it is very helpful as this is my first attempt at creating an article. It also gives me a better understanding of what an encyclopedic article is. I will rework the article in the next few days and once I have, can I ask you again to take a look?  As to the image I picked from Wikimedia commons to depict the image of a older generation with the absence of technology; I did not understand the images from this site where not free to use as one saw appropriate to visualize a point or statement.--4tiggy (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have revised this start up draft article as per your recommendations. I am assuming that the image is not useful due to Wikipedia conventions/norms/guidelines, as the licensing information (GNU Free Documentation License) associated with the image states that:  "you are free: to share/to remix --under the following conditions--attribution/share alike".  Could you briefly explain this "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike" within the context of the GNU Free Documentation License ... I am not sure I really understand this.  Thanks again for you help!--4tiggy (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:33, 25 July 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) 02:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request
A speedy deletion request you placed on Bahai internet agency is being removed by the IP of the editor that created the page. Please see here. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. When you see edits like this, don't forget to place a warning, so we can stop the disruptive edits in a timely manner. Happy editing and vandal fighting! Best regards, Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 15:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Between disruptive editing and our class' fledgling attempts at writing acceptable articles, you are being kept busy! Thanks for giving us such detailed feedback. It's been interesting to follow the events in the above edits.--Ncsjfreed (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion, why?
Why did you place a speedy deletion tag on an article that is in the middle of a deletion nomination process? --Fatimiya (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This refers to the article Fatimiya Sufi Order. --Fatimiya (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, the copyvio deletion process takes precedence over the AFD process. This is the process of editing in a collaborative environment. We cannot accept articles that are unambiguous copyright violations. Please see this link for more information about this policy. Best regards, Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 13:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you point out specifically where copyright was violated in the article Fatimiya Sufi Order. I would like to see evidence please --Fatimiya (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Go to the CSD tag on the article and click the link for the Duplication Detector report, where you will find significant duplication of the copyrighted content. Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 14:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no copyrighted content at issue. I am the originator of the quoted material on the website regarding the Fatimiya Sufi Order. Furthemore the article on wikipedia was not authored by me. It was authored by Roya Jakoby --Fatimiya (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can provide evidence of ownership of the copyrighted materials, you will need to follow the instructions for donating copyrighted materials. Simply follow the guidelines and email the Foundation. Remember that continued removal of deletion tags may result in a block or suspension of your editing privileges. Best regards, Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 14:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is your evidence, the quoted material on http://indigosociety.com/showthread.php?38059-Monotheism-and-the-Doctrine-of-the-Trinity/page2} clearly links to my blog http://fatimiyasufiorder.org/. Had you cared to look closely you would have seen it in the quoted material itself. There is no duplication. The quoted material on http://indigosociety.com/showthread.php?38059-Monotheism-and-the-Doctrine-of-the-Trinity/page2 cites its source. Take another look --Fatimiya (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied at your talkpage. Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 14:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Amused
The size of this page is simply ridiculous. If you cannot be bothered to archive regularly, please ask MiszaBot to help you. You tagged Avalon University School of Medicine for deletion with A10 as a duplicate of Avalon university school of medicine. Did you consider that the other way round might have been better? &mdash; RHaworth 12:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC) I cannot imagine that any reasonable editor would prefer Avalon university school of medicine. Can you cite an example? &mdash; RHaworth 12:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. A bit ridiculous. I'll have to archive this puppy. As far as "the other way around", I agree there too. I've simply been raked through the coals forward and backwards by well-meaning admin camps from both sides of the aisle claiming one way is wrong while the other is right. Oy vey. I just got to the point of tagging the latter, for the sake of consistency. I get raked either way. Do you know of any guidelines to which I point for future clarity when the next admin comes raking? That is, if I switch it up? After all, I personally prefer your rationale. Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 12:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I honestly can't. I don't have the patience or inclination to search through archives and 1,000s of posts. The general argument that I tend to hear the most is to always keep the first of the two articles created. I find it a bit daft, but don't like to rock the boat (too much.) Now, I'm really going to try to figure out this Miszabot thang. (I also need a cup of coffee.) Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 13:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)