User talk:Cindamuse/Archive 16

Ambassador Program: assessment drive
Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.

In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.

Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. 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) 05:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Rollback
Hi Cindy. I have granted you rollback rights, trusting you to use it wisely. You probably know what this right entails, but just for the record: Rollback feature. Remember that "with great power comes great responsibility." Favonian (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

User:4tiggy/sandbox

 * 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)
 * Thanks, looking forward to your feedback/comments--4tiggy (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like things are coming along nicely. I went ahead and created a lead section for the article and provided citation examples for the first three sources. Let me know if you have questions or need help with citing the remaining sources. Happy editing! Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 13:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback and editing. I will keep working on content, etc. as time permits :)  Your help is much appreciated! --4tiggy (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Dywane Thomas, Jr.
Hey Cindamuse.....hope all is well with you! I just removed "citation needed tags" and added a reference regarding Thomas' experimental works/latest recording. Could you retrieved the reference? 75.66.97.226 (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. Could you provide more information? To what article are you referring? Are you a registered user that has forgotten to log in to your account? Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 20:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh im sorry!! I forgot to log-in! But I wanted to tell you that I removed "citation needed tags" and added a reference to replace it, regarding Thomas' latest recording/work. Is it good a reference? Also I wanted to ask you how can I use the same exact reference for 2 or more paragraphs in the article? Jamesallen2 (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll want to remove the reference to bestbuy.com. We don't link to sites which only serve for promotions, marketing, or sales. The other source looks good. Review the template for musical artists, and make changes to the infobox in the article to ensure compliance. The one item that jumped out at me was the inclusion of the birthplace in the field for birthdate. And finally, make sure that external links are not merely a duplication of the references used in the article. Other than that, it appears to be coming along nicely. Hope all is well with you! Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 21:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Question: Having problems uploading/replacing image for - Fort Worth Stockyards
Hello, here I am again with more questions. I have tried to upload the discussed image using: Wikipedia: Uploading images & Wikipedia:Upload/Replace this image ... and have been unsuccessful. Not sure why, but thinking it may be related to incorrect formatting in the file description. On a few attempts, I also got the message - "File extension does not match MIME type" ... I think this again points me to an incorrect file description, but not sure. Do you have any suggestions on how I can upload this image to the article's infobox in a simple way? Thanks for all you help and guidance :) --4tiggy (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you using the upload page at WP:Upload? I have another question. Is your professor instructing students to review articles on Wikipedia? Such as reviewing Good Articles? Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 17:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have tried uploading image on both -- WP:Upload and WP:Upload/Replace this image with no success.  The message that keeps coming to me is:  "File extension does not match MIME type".  Yes, one of our suggested tasks is to review GA nominations.  Thanks again.--4tiggy (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. Don't use WP:Upload/Replace this image. Use WP:Upload. 2. What format is the image in? And what is the size? 3. Is the new version of the file in the same exact file format as the original. For instance, are you trying to overwrite a .jpg with a .svg? On another note, I realize that it is not the fault of the students, but reviewing articles is an official process only performed by seasoned, experienced editors. The GA reviews performed by students and new editors is actually considered disruptive. I have been placing notices on the talk pages of the other MACT students about this, and have tried to apologize to other editors that now require their review to essentially be scrapped. Just a heads up. Don't offer any second opinions or review any articles anymore. Last semester, we actually had some students assessing the articles of their classmates as GAs. It was a mess cleaning it all up. Is Gordon Gow your professor? I would be happy to contact him to explain the situation. Or if your professor is someone else, again, I would be happy to contact him/her to make sure they understand the situation. Let me know.  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 19:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I will try again using the WP:Upload ... I am sure I will eventually figure it out, thank you for all your help! On behalf of myself & my classmates, apologies for offering second opinions and reviews, we are now aware that it is not appropriate and will no longer engage in these activities.  Sorry for the inconvenience  and disruption it has caused other editors. Again, my sincerest apologies.  Thanks for all your guidance. --4tiggy (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's clear that nobody understood and were simply doing what they were told. I don't want anybody getting in trouble for not following the professor's instructions, so if needed, let him/her know to contact me. Let me know if the WP:Upload works. If you can't get it to work, you can always email the image to me and I can upload it for you. Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 21:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, and also my apologies, I don't believe this will be a problem for the group. If I am unable to successfully upload this image with a few more attempts, then I will take you up on the email offer.  I would like to attempt again, as I believe it is good learning for me to figure out the process! You guidance is much appreciated :) --4tiggy (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I have finally been successful with my image upload ... but not sure, red warning statement: "If you do not provide suitable license and source information, your upload will be deleted without further notice".  Is this a generic message that comes up or did I do something wrong?  It does now show up in Commons and I will try to edit it into the Fort Worth Stockyards article.  Thanks for all your time !--4tiggy (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination
Hi Cindy, Wondering if I can get you to weigh on on this proposed DYK nomination- is there anything we're missing in terms of it being eligible? Your feedback is appreciated! Nickolaus Hirschl. Ncsjfreed (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Overall, while any user may nominate an article for DYK, I recommend contacting User:Epeefleche for input. The editor is greatly involved in the DYK process, so out of courtesy, contact him first. Let him know you are a student trying to learn about DYKs and would like to nominate his article for DYK. Let him know what kind of hook you were thinking about using and ask for his thoughts or alternate suggestions. Let me know what happens and we'll take it from there. Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 17:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Student GA Reviews
Hi Cindamuse, I've noticed messages from you on several student pages instructing them not to review GA nominees. While I understand your concern that they may need more experience, I would argue that unless specific students are producing problematic reviews (which I haven't looked for), there's no reason why they can't participate at GAN. In fact, GAN welcomes new reviewers, with or without mentors as they are comfortable. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting me. As an Ambassador working with these students, one of the directives is to provide support and guidance to learn how to participate in the community and edit Wikipedia. Essentially, this requires that Ambassadors keep an eye on the edits and contributions of the students with whom we are working. GAs are one of two classifications for high-quality articles that have been through an assessment nomination process. Editors don't have to be highly-experienced to make good suggestions for improving an article, but they should understand the basics of what a really good article or GA looks like. Last semester, we had several students reviewing articles created by their fellow students and arbitrarily indicating they were good articles when they weren't. Reviews made by students and new editors have become problematic and frustrating for editors requesting reviews, only to find that the GA threshold hasn't actually been met. This semester, I have been working with students who at this point, lack basic knowledge and understanding of the Manual of Style, verifiability, original research, copyright violations, neutral point of view, reliable sources, citations, and the image use policy. In order to accurately review and assess articles, an understanding of these guidelines and policies is vital. Again, new reviewers are always welcome, official reviews by new and inexperienced editors oftentimes becomes disruptive and accordingly are discouraged. When it is clearly evident that these editors do not yet have a basic understanding of the community guidelines and policies, even to the point of overlooking blatant copyright violations, it is time to step in. I am continuing to work with these students, providing guidance with understanding the applicable policies and guidelines. If you are interested in helping pick up the slack by working directly with one of the students in this class, please let me know. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 16:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation on GA reviews and nominations, Cindamuse. I'm wondering if something on the GA page to discourage new editors from participating would be appropriate. At the moment it says "Articles can be nominated by anyone, and reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article." The "You can help!" at the top of the page, without any clarification on who "you" is, also makes this seem like an open invitation. If the GA review process is not in fact open to all, perhaps the GA page could state that. Oishiisou (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is open to all, unless someone has specifically demonstrated they are unable to contribute appropriately - which is why though Cindamuse's explanation makes sense, I'm not sure it's a strong enough argument to ban students wholesale from reviewing. Obviously we want to discourage quid-pro-quo reviews, but not necessarily all reviews. Perhaps it might be appropriate to require that if a student wishes to participate at GAN, they do so in collaboration with a good article mentor or someone else familiar with the process? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think requiring/requesting a mentor is definitely the way for new and inexperienced editors to go. Adding a notation at GAN may be appropriate to that end. Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 20:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback, Cindamuse. I think many of us had the same questions running through our minds. As Oishiisou suggested, the notation on the GA page might help remind new users to check with a mentor/get a second opinion. I will run by any feedback I've already posted with my mentor to see if I'm on the right track. Thanks. Stan mact (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Greetings. I saw that you helpfully informed User:Khazar of a situation at Talk:Giles Muhame/GA1, saying "I recommended that a second request is submitted for GA assessment and review." He agreed, but has not done anything as of yet. I'm not actually sure what should be done here... the nomination still has a status of "onreview". Should the GA1 page be deleted, so that the process can be started over? Should it be changed to show a failed nomination, with a new nomination immediately opened at GA2? Should I change the status to request a 2nd opinion? What's the best way to move forward? Thanks for all your assistance here, – Quadell (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey there! As far as Talk:Giles Muhame/GA1, I would recommend simply requesting a second opinion. Please don't hesitate to contact me anytime you have a question or need assistance. Best regards, Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 19:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for ICICI Bank edit advice
The citation no.18 covers points of instabanking and vehicle finance.Rest citation will be done as per the guidelines. Nishonomics116 (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I am unable to get you.Can you please elaborate on the maintenance templates? Nishonomics116 (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey there! First, please don't hesitate to contact me anytime you have questions. And always make sure to post messages by selecting "New Section" at the top of the page. The software will then be able to place your message in the proper place. The notes that were placed on your talkpage and in the edit summaries at ICICI Bank simply let you know that it is inappropriate to remove the maintenance templates before addressing the issues indicated. Specifically, do not remove the tags that indicate that additional citations are needed. It is also important that you refrain from using press releases and blogs to support content/notability. See Third-party_sources and WP:NEWSORG, and WP:SPS. You've received three notices at this point. I have again restored the unaddressed maintenance tags. It is vitally important at this point that rather than removing the maintenance tags, that you address the issues. Thanks. And again, when you have questions, please contact me. Best regards, Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 17:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Thanks for replying. What should be done in a case when a single citation is covering subsequent points/headers. In ICICI Bank case,citation 21 covers both instabanking and vehicle financing;which has been explicitly being mentioned in references as well. That is the reason I feel if it is covered in single citation;there stands no reason for re-citing it. Nishonomics116 (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You can find more information about formatting citations (when the same reference is used more than once), here. Let me know if you need assistance or have more questions. Best regards, Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 19:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Can you please go through the article and provide your inputs regarding the controversy part and the overall article? Nishonomics116 (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I understand your request. Are you asking me to copyedit the article? Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 23:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:06, 8 August 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) 04:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

ICICI Bank
The criticism section of the article may be compromising the NPOV of the subject. How should we go about it? Nishonomics116 (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Whittaker Moss Primary School
Hi, I am just wondering why you go rid of the article Whittaker Moss Primary School? There was no discussion or anything regarding this. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey there, thanks for contacting me. The standard procedure for non-notable primary and middle schools is to either redirect to the school district that operates them (North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere), rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia. Essentially, only schools of higher levels of education are considered inherently notable, sufficient to forgo outright deletion. Schools do not in and of themselves fall under the criteria for speedy deletion, and the common of deletion discussions is to redirect. Hope this makes sense. If you have any other questions or ever need assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 17:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, i didnt know that. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Michael Phelps Foundation
I saw your message at User talk:JazzBeat72. After equivocating and getting re-updated with how CSD and PROD is functioning now, I was just bold, and first reduced the cruft and fluff in the article, and the result didn't establish any independent notability. So I copied one line into Michael Phelps and then redirected.--Cerejota (talk) 23:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You did the right thing. It could have been pared down to a stub, supported by two references, a further reading section, and an external link to the organization's website, but the user apparently wasn't interested. I was hoping to mentor the user to bring about a stub at the very least. While the article was expanded from earlier deleted versions, I felt it could be a sock, but was unaware of the other puppets. In the end, we now have at least one nonnotable and insufficiently referenced article created by one of the socks, but not previously detected. All in all, you did the right thing. Happy editing and best regards, Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 00:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kindness ;)--Cerejota (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

A REQUEST, PLEASE
Cindamuse, with connections to the Ashleys and the Coopers you must have connections to Charleston, SC where the Ashley and the Cooper Rivers come together to form the Atlantic Ocean. My birthplace was about 75 miles inland.

Would you, please, take a look at User:Nageh/Theodicy and the Bible (second draft) and give me your opinion?

A brief history of the article. I am a professor emeritus of a theological seminary who has taught and written on the topic of “theodicy and the Bible.” So I tried to do volunteer work by writing the article. My first attempt (User:Vejlefjord/Theodicy_and_the_Bible) was nominated for deletion and userfied in March-April 2010. Several editors, including Nageh, told me that the issue was not content quality but format/style, so I tried to understand and comply with WP’s formatting rules. In the process, Nageh gave much help and moved the thing to his user pages. User:Nageh/Theodicy and the Bible (second draft) is my last attempt to get the article formatted correctly. The article is preceded by an explanation to Nageh about what I had done.

However, Nageh wrote me “I feel really sorry I still haven't gotten to review your draft as promised. Unfortunately, I am very busy these days and while I do spend some (too much) time on other stuff on Wikipedia this task is a bigger one I have postponed so far. I won't have much time available anytime soon either so you might try contacting some person on the Christianity project, and if actual work will be going on I might still be able to jump in. Sorry I'm not of more help for the moment. Best, Nageh (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)”

So, Cindamuse, I am contacting you as I had already planned to do at some point. Vejlefjord (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry
Hello, can you help me move the contents of the page Royal Independent Investigation Commission to the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry page which I have created with the correct name for the Commission. See www.bici.org.bh I'm new and don't know how to redirect pages.

Big Sur surfer (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I did it! Big Sur surfer (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Very cool! What you did was redirect the article. Since you now have ten edits, you should be able to see a new "move" button at the top of the page. In the future, rather than creating articles with a separate name, you can move articles to different titles, like if there is an official name change or typo, by simply clicking that button and follow the instructions. Hit me up anytime you need help. Best regards and happy editing! Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 12:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Tierra del Sol Middle School
Tierra del Sol Middle School is not part of the LUSD in Bakersfield. It is a completely different district. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZZero4K (talk • contribs) 10:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey there, thanks for contacting me. Does the school district have an article on Wikipedia? The standard procedure for non-notable primary and middle schools is to either redirect or merge to the school district that operates them (North America); the city or town, if a district article does not exist; or the lowest level locality (elsewhere), rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia. Essentially, only schools of higher levels of education are considered inherently notable, sufficient to forgo outright deletion. Schools do not in and of themselves fall under the criteria for speedy deletion, and the common of deletion discussions is to redirect. Hope this makes sense. I'll redirect ti the city until a district article is identified. If you have any other questions or ever need assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 10:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Tierra del Sol Middle School is in the Lakeside Union School district, not in Bakersfield, but in Lakeside, CA. It's located in the East County of San Diego. Lakeside is right near Ramona, Santee and El Cajon. JC Rules! (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Very good. I couldn't find an article for that school district, so forwarded to the city. Would you be interested in creating an article for the school district? If you are interested, I would recommend working on it in a subpage of your userspace at User:ZZero4K/Lakeside Union School District (Lakeside, California). Let me know if you have questions. Best regards, Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 00:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking for help, still :)
Hi Cindamuse, You have recently changed my help request to a helped request. I have looked over the last two and can find no help offered except by those working on the article and differing on issues. I was hoping someone, such as yourself, could come in and give advice. I have been at Wikipedia for nine months or so. I just learned how to ask for help within the last two weeks. Good to meet you. You can see one of the actions HERE. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and provided a third opinion. Please feel free to contact me if you need additional help or have questions. Best regards, Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 23:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors: Time to join pods
Hello! If you're planning to be an active Online Ambassador for the upcoming academic term, now is the time to join one or more pods. (A pod consists of the instructor, the Campus Ambassadors, and the Online Ambassadors for single class.) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explains the expectations for being part of a pod as an Online Ambassador. (The MOU for pods in Canada is essentially the same.) In short, the role of Online Ambassadors this term consists of:
 * Working closely with the instructor and Campus Ambassadors, providing advice and perspective as an experienced Wikipedian
 * Helping students who ask for it (or helping them to find the help they need)
 * Watching out for the class as a whole
 * Helping students to get community feedback on their work

This replaces the 1-on-1 mentoring role for Online Ambassadors that we had in previous terms; rather than being responsible for individual students (some of whom don't want or help or are unresponsive), Online Ambassadors will be there to help whichever students in their class(es) ask for help.

You can browse the upcoming courses here: United States; Canada. More are being added as new pods become active and create their course pages.

Once you've found a class that you want to work with&mdash;especially if you some interest or expertise in the topic area&mdash;you should sign the MOU listing for that class and get in touch with the instructor. We're hoping to have at least two Online Ambassadors per pod, and more for the larger classes.

If you're up for supporting any kind of class and would like me to assign you to a pod in need of more Online Ambassadors, just let me know.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: There are still a lot of student articles from the last term that haven't been rated. Please rate a few and update the list!

Toc Tien
As far as Toc Tien goes, she is a big star in Vietnam, the idol of today's teens. Everyone knows who she is. I added some more references to the article. Of course, Dong Nhi is an bigger star and we don't even have an article for her. Kauffner (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Claiming that a subject is a "big star", "popular", or "well known among local teens" does not establish notability. There is a claim of significance in the article of having released two albums. This claim has not been verified. The majority of references provided simply support that she is a student attending school in the U.S. One provides only limited information about a music release, but nothing to establish notability in accordance with WP:MUSICBIO. Unless references can be found to establish notability, this article may be headed for deletion. Best regards, Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 21:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters). 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) 18:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Joining the POD
Hello Cindamuse. I noticed some of your edits yesterday which indicate you are intent on assisting the Writing as Communication course as an online ambassador. I look forward to interacting with you in this regard. Unless I misunderstood your intentions, it would be good if you added your name to the POD here. My76Strat (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC) agreed! 138.87.137.101 (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. I look forward to working with you as well. Best regards, Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 21:52, 21 August 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) 14:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

compliance with the community guidelinesDobrevasnejana 09:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Hello there, Cind.amuse, your comments and your warning boxes on my recently launched page on Varban Stamatov have been duly noted. You can rest assured that as a new user I have exceeded my own expectations, if not yours, and please lets not get personal, as you did in your remarks. Your recommendation that I read Wikipedia's Manual of Style - all I can say to that is, how do you know that I have not read and observed your guidelines? On your User Page you state that you enjoy assisting new editors, and that your area of expertise is "biographies". In what respect has my article not met your community guidelines for writing and editing articles. It is still in the process of being edited and needs improvement, the inline citations have been added as per Wikipedia Tutorials and article on Citing Sources, my reference section has improved and expanded. All that I find in your comments is threats to remove or delete my article, not help in human terms ("don't bite the newbies"!) or professional assistance. So what exactly is the problem? Just as an article's sources cannot be checked or verified because its primary source is not in an English language that does not warrant its speedy deletion. The very best that has been done here is entering references, links to other articles and quotes to support the article content. Would you kindly, at some point in the near future, remove the warning boxes from the Varban Stamatov (Bulgarian writer) article. Thank you and if there are further issues please do not hesitate to raise them with me in the first instance.--Dobrevasnejana 09:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobrevasnejana (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, I do enjoy helping new editors! ;) Not sure what you're thinking about threats or deletion. Neither of the articles that you're writing about your father and grandfather are nominated for speedy deletion. And I certainly haven't mentioned the possibility of deletion or implied threats of any kind. Please accept my apologies if there was anything I have said that appeared negative in any manner. This is far from my intentions. Deletion shouldn't be an issue, since notability of the two subjects appears to be established. They both seem like very interesting individuals. In my opinion, a welcome asset to the encyclopedia. If others come forward and nominate or suggest deletion, please let me know so that I can help. The link to the Manual of Style (MOS) was offered due to the continued use of html rather than wiki markup, along with format, layout, and citation issues. These issues are addressed in the Manual of Style. I provided the link to the MOS, assuming that you were unfamiliar with it, due to noncompliance in the articles that you are writing. The link was offered to assist you. Like yourself, I was new to the encyclopedia once, and was and continue to be grateful when other editors share tips and suggestions with me. Rather than continue editing and reverting the work of other contributors, it would be beneficial for you to review the editing guidelines. Just a suggestion or recommendation to help you as you continue writing and editing articles. Once you become familiar with the guidelines, you may come to realize that others are contributing in an effort to help you. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have more questions. Best regards, Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 13:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Another note. There are currently four maintenance tags on the Varban Stamatov article. One pertains to the conflict of interest; another to lack of consistent citation and referencing; the third addressing needed article cleanup; and the final one is a notification that no other articles link to it. On both articles, you can click through the links on the maintenance tags for more information. I've offered my assistance and let you know that I am here if you have questions. I've also attempted to help with the articles by cleaning up citation errors and formatting, but you keep reverting those actions to maintain visible errors. Before the maintenance templates can be removed from the article, we need to address the outstanding issues. Also, while English sources are preferred (since this is the English Wikipedia), don't worry about providing references using foreign language sources. We can get translations if needed. I don't think the foreign language sources are an issue at this point. Don't worry about the articles being deleted. At this point, we just need to address errors and misapplication of the MOS guidelines. I'm more than willing to help you bring the articles into compliance. And I'm still here if you have questions. Best regards, Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 13:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

At this point in time I would very much to express my thanks for your contribution (in your note above) and for your help in improving both my articles on Varban Stamatov and Dimitar Dobrev. All I can say is that you are correct in pointing out those multiple issues that need resolving and that I am continuing editing and work on achieving consistency throughout the text and particularly with citing sources and inline citations. As to linking this article to others, it would not be ethical or appropriate for me to go into another person's article and insert links from there, so far I have only done this with regards to an author, Boris Aprilov as I know with certainty they knew each other and more to the point, my father wrote in his last book "Hostage and Fugitive" 1997 pp.288-297 of their encounter and friendship. During my childhood years I knew and met with many of my father's associates, colleagues, his intellectual circle, obviously i cannot prove this. Bancho Banov, for instance shared a flat with my father, they worked together as editors, in other words a life-long friendship. Because none of the quotations or references sources I have entered are in the English language I resorted to translating to ease the English Wikipedia reader, if that is unacceptable, please advise further. All issues will eventually be resolved in time, it is said Rome was not built in a day Thank you again for your continued assistance Cindamuse. Dobrevasnejana 12:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Storming Home
Dear Cindamuse. Thankyou for your comments and tags on the Storming Home article. I have probably been concentrating more on quantity than quality recently. I have re-jigged some of the references so that they are cited when needed and added a new one. I have also got rid of some of the more egregiously anthropomorphic language. I have taken off most of your tags after making the changes and made a record of this in the edit summaries. I will work my way through the other articles I have started recently and make the same kind of changes. I will also look at the layout- I had been working on the idea of one paragraph a season, but I can see that this makes for a rather unappealing wall-of-text effect. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I commented on the article's talk page. Some images would probably help alongside a "wall of text" appearance. As stated on the talk page, let me know if you need help. Best regards, Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 02:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Political Parties
Hi Cindy, I just noticed you signed on as an Online Ambassador for my course. The course page is here. Thanks in advance for helping out with this! Sgelbman (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Hi Cindy, looking forward to working with you on this project throughout the semester. Nsgrimm (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)|Nsgrimm (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)]] (Nsgrimm (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)|talk]]) —Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC). Hi Cindy, this is Keegan from POL. 214. I am looking forward to working on this project this semester! Kpsoule (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)]]
 * Thanks, Shamira! Look forward to working with you. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have questions or need help in any way. Best regards, Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 22:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi again, just demonstrating how this works in class. Sgelbman (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * this Wikipedia stuff is fun Ztteaguisu (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Cindy, this is Casey from POL. 214 Cjconst (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello this is Jeremy from POL. 214 I am excited to work with you on this project! Jjmecie (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Cindy, I'm Celsy from POL 214. I'm glad I found your talk page! I'm excited to see the results of this project. --CelsMdale (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cindy, this is Matt from POL 214. I am look forward to this course and learning more how Wikipedia operates. I use wikipedia almost everyday, though I have never contributed to an an article until today. Mabutch (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)mabutch

Cindy thanks for the welcome message on my user page, I'm in POL 214 and look forward to working with you this semester. Tjesser (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Question
I have observed some pretty remarkable contributions from this account. I am curious, why are you not an administrator. Pardon that you have struck me as the kind of editor who could be a good one, and that you seem qualified by a cursory review. I am working on an essay, and I believe you are of the adman class. I'd like to see you become an admin. This essay might explain, but you are exactly the kind of editor I had in mind. My76Strat (talk) 07:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Strat. I appreciate the comments. I can confirm that I am among the group of editors hesitant to submit to the current RFA process. Honestly, I have often found occasion where having the tools would be beneficial. I'm often online in the middle of the night. Fighting vandals and flagging inappropriate articles becomes a tiresome task, when admins are scarcely available to lend support. I enjoy my work on Wikipedia and would welcome the opportunity to help out in a greater capacity. On the surface, I think an RFA "appointment" sounds appealing. However, if established, I foresee two separate "camps" of admins. I sense there would be a bit of animosity coming from editors that chose to earlier submit to the gauntlet. If established, I also question why all editors wouldn't opt to forgo the firing line. And when all is said and done, what would stop others from dredging up the mistakes of "appointees" in an effort to discredit the appointment process? Ideally, in my opinion, I would like to see a small panel of elected editors overseeing RFA appointments. Editors would submit an application through email, much like OTRS functions now. The application would be reviewed to determine viability, followed by confirmation in accordance with set criteria. If the applicant was not promoted, they would be offered guidance and tips for addressing and improving shortcomings. In my opinion, this process would result in less upheaval over the current RFA process. The current RFA process would be retained solely for recalling admins. Retaining the "gauntlet" for the purpose of recalling admins, could feasibly result in due diligence on the part of current and future admins who wish to avoid the process at all costs. This would be a win-win for all parties working toward a quality encyclopedia. Just my two cents. Thanks again for contacting me. Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 08:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that very good insight. And I do believe you will one day make a fine administrator. My76Strat (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cindy!
Hi Cindy,

I'm really looking forward to this project. It should be a lot of fun! Eknilss (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Assignment
Hi,

My name is Kyle Madeja and I am enrolled in POL 214 section 2. Just wanted to contact an ambassador and get used to using wikipedia. Thank you in advanced for your help this semester.

KyleMadeja (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Kyle Madeja
 * Hope you have a terrific day, Kyle. I look forward to working with you. Don't hesitate to contact me if you need help or have questions on navigating the world of Wikipedia. Best regards, Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 16:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for the warm welcome. I look forward to talking with you over the course of this project, as I am new to Wikipedia. Thank you for your assistance!Jdslate (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Good morning (reply)
I think it's still morning for you :) Thanks for your note on my talk page earlier. I'm glad you'll be working with POL 214. Most of the students are all set up; there are maybe 2 or 3 more who may wander in late. They'll all be playing around with their user pages and practing to edit for another week or so, and then the campus ambassadors and I will prep them to work on their state party articles. Most of that work will happen in October and November, since I'm having them spend a few weeks on preliminary research before they start making big content changes. It's good that you have a personal interest in some of the articles they'll be working on -- I'm sure that will come in handy once they start improving them! I'll be online a bit less for about a week starting tomorrow because I'll be gone (to Seattle, actually) for a conference, but I will check in periodically and Casey will be holding down the fort here while I'm away. Sgelbman (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Fastily/Archive 5
A user has contested the deletion of Debate about paternity of Sally Hemings' children on my talk page. As the user who originally nominated the page for deletion, your input would be appreciated. Thanks! - F ASTILY  (TALK) 08:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I must say you were faster in nominating this page for deleting than in defending this nomination... please reply! KarlFrei (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my lack in contacting you sooner. Real life took over this week. While Fastily presented a question, I am unable to review the deleted article. However, as I recall, the subject of both articles addressed the paternity of the children and descendants of Sally Hemmings to determine if Jefferson was the common ancestor. By any chance did you save a copy of the article? Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 18:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like MiszaBot archived it. I placed a copy of the article on my talk page in this revision (see wikitext).   F ASTILY  (TALK) 19:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I went to the link provided, but it only opens up the editing window for your talk page. As I recall though, they were two articles addressing the same subject, albeit from a different perspective. It may be possible to simply merge the two articles. Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 19:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, wrong link: - F ASTILY  (TALK) 19:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is what I wrote on Fastily's talk page:
 * I followed the links on your talk page which lead me to the explanation of A10. I am still writing this note however, because I simply disagree. The article that I created is not a duplicate, it merely refers to the Jefferson DNA analysis at the start. Most of the article (about 75% I would say, after some necessary introduction) is concerned with the opinions and behavior of various historians over the last 200 years, something which is not at all discussed in Jefferson DNA Data. We did explain this on the talk page. I do not at all understand how you can read these two articles and consider them to be duplicates. KarlFrei (talk) 10:11 am, 29 August 2011, last Monday (2 days ago) (UTC+2)

I would be fine with merging the two pages, but of course now the deleted page is inaccessible. It seems that this nice prominent button "Contest this deletion" is completely useless, since the deletion just happens anyway without reading the defense... KarlFrei (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Indianapolis Island
Thanks for checking out Indianapolis Island. It's always interesting to see what others think about articles. However, I don't really understand why you put those three banners on the article. It'd be really helpful if you'd put a rational on the discussion page. In this way we could learn the reasons you've done it. In short, I disagree with each of the tags, but I think it much more helpful to have a discussion there. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've restored the maintenance tags along with others. I'm concerned that the article contains direct copy/paste and close paraphrasing from several pages within the museum's website. The conflict of interest, use of self-published sources, and lack of referencing are additional concerns. Contact me again if you have questions. Best regards, Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 16:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Ambassador program
I've actually had my eye on the Ambassador Program for a few semesters. Unfortunately, I probably won't join anytime soon. Currently I can't guarantee that I will be available online during any given week, so being an ambassador is sadly out of the question. Thanks for inviting me, though!  Sophus Bie  (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hit me back if you ever change your mind! Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 10:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up Request
Cindamuse, my “A REQUEST” posted on this page on August 17, 2011 was apparently deleted. Please let me know whether it was inadvertent or whether it means a “No” to my request or whether I am missing an answer. Thanks. Vejlefjord (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey there! Thanks for contacting me again. My apologies for missing your request in the first go'round. Overall, your proposed article is quite lengthy and may need to be split. The article appears as an overwhelming wall of text, lessening readability. Honestly, the article appears to be synthesis of published material. Essentially, a combination of material from multiple sources (or verses) to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources alone. If one source says A, and another source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is what we refer to as original research. I wish I had something better to offer you. I also invite you to hit up a member from the Christianity WikiProject. Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 10:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Jacqueline Diffring
Hi, Thanks for your points! Could you please help me to improve the page? Would be great because I am quite new here and would like to learn. Best Fschoenf (talk) 08:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi! I've offered some hints and links to guidelines pertaining to issues in the article. One thing that is important is clearly indicating how and/or why the subject is significant or important. How is this person different from other subjects with similar backgrounds? Review the topical notability guideline for artists and specifically state how the subject is notable. Then support those claims through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Hope this helps! Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 08:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)