User talk:Cindamuse/Archive 8

Caring for Carcinoid Foundation
Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia so I may be mistaken but it seems to me that this meets the notability guidelines. Certainly many other medical foundations can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Medical_and_health_foundations These organizations seem to me to be very similar. A very important consideration is that often the people seeking information about these foundations are looking for information about treatment options; in this case ready availability of information can make the difference between life and death. With respect to carcinoid cancer, and neuroendocrine cancer generally, there is a dearth of reliable information, so it seems like a good idea to make it available. I don't suffer from this disease, but I know someone who does, and she speaks highly of the services that this nonprofit makes available. Hope this helps, Tillander 11:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope I'd doing this right...I added confirmation to my page on the Caring for Carcinoid Foundatin confirming its nonprofit status...I hope this is ok. Is there anything else I should do to improve the article? Thanks in advance for your advice; I'm relatively new to all this. Tillander 11:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for writing. I've responded on the article's talk page. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have more questions. Cindamuse (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why the article was listed for CSD:A7? I agree that notability may not have been established, but I do think it established credible importance (the purpose of A7).  Per the criteria for CSD:A7, "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines."  Thus, even it not notable or not supported by reliable sources, the article did claim importance.  Importance is a lower standard than notability.  Notability concerns should be tagged with PROD tags.   jsfouche  &#9789;&#9790;   talk  13:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi! The article qualified for A7, simply because it failed to indicate notability. The article clearly stated the function of the organization as a foundation. However, the article failed to indicate "credible importance" or notability. What sets it apart? What has it accomplished? Is there anything unique? Different? Noteworthy? The article just fails to indicate anything beyond its mere existence. You can surely PROD an article addressing notability, but it does not negate the A7 criteria, which is specifically designed to address notability in a timely manner. Best regards, Cindamuse (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. A7 criteria are for significance or importance, not notability.  The A7 criteria specifically mentions that it is a lower standard than notability.  CSD:A7 should not be used for notability concerns. Cheers,  jsfouche  &#9789;&#9790;   talk  13:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your interest. Based on your understanding, the article also lacks significance or importance. Thanks again, Cindamuse (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 backlog elimination drive update
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor (talk) at 15:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

False accusation of vandalism
You really seem like someone who should know better, so I'll assume it was a lapse of judgment on your part. You should not go around reverting constructive edits and accusing other editors of vandalism. It probably is time to start marking sex work-related articles as being exempt from wikipedia's core policies, as it seems to be the general consensus that they are. But until they are marked as such, editors are going to try to improve them (probably not me though, I'm technically "retired" but occasionally try to contribute in a bout of idealistic belief that wikipedia's core policies are actually taken seriously). You can't just go around reverting those changes and blocking improvements. TJ Black (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Calling edits to remove uncited and POV material "disruptive" is pretty egregious. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but your actions are pretty hard to justify. If it really is the case that sex work-related articles are exempt from wikipedia's core policies, then please mark them as such. Otherwise you'll continually have to deal with editors trying to improve the articles and make them more balanced. It just wastes everyone's time to pretend this is not the case. TJ Black (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, deletion of sourced content and POV pushing equates to vandalism. It is indeed disruptive, and quite frankly it is clear that you have a long history of pushing a particular point of view and disregarding those of others. Outright deletion of content of which you disagree is inappropriate. If you disagree with something an article, the appropriate response would be to review the sources offered and initiate a conversation on the talk page that presents your contrary position along with sources. The inappropriate response, which you have initiated, is to outright disregard all other research and content that is not in line with your opinions. Again, blanking out or removing sections and portions of page content equates to vandalism. It is in your best interest to try to work within the system, rather than dismiss it. Regards, Cindamuse (talk) 02:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So you get to throw out nonsensical accusations and warnings while refusing to have any sort of discussion or seeking consensus? When and if you're willing to have a rational discussion, contact me directly. I've read the linked refs several times and the articles claims are not supported. Your continued reversions are disruptive and POV pushing. TJ Black (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) You have established a long pattern of POV pushing in sex- and human trafficking-related articles. Again, it is in your best interest to try to work within the system, rather than dismiss it. Regards, 02:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Cindamuse (talk)
 * I'm the one trying to work within the system here. You're the one throwing out random, false accusations. TJ Black (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Working within the system does not include showing up one month, making a bunch of disruptive POV edits, having participants at the admin notice board tell you that you are out of line, then leaving, then showing up several months later to revisit those same subjects/articles and pushing your point of view again. This is not working within the system, this is attempting to disregard the system. The general consensus is that paragraphs/sections need support by at least one reference. The entry on the branding of prostitutes with tattoos is supported through two sources. Additional links are certainly available, but link farms are not appropriate. And honestly, trying to claim that pimping is not criminal is a stretch, or in other words, an attempt at POV pushing. Again. Seriously, please just stop. Cindamuse (talk) 03:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So it's ok to have uncited material on wikipedia as long as there's a ref present, even if it doesn't actually support what the article says? And show me where in the wikitionary definition it says that pimps are always criminal? Any you'll notice I said pimps weren't criminal, just that they weren't necessarily criminal. You do understand the difference, don't you? Certainly in places where prostitution is illegal they would be, but don't we want to avoid systemic bias on wikipedia? And how does removing blatant violations of wikipedia policies constitute POV pushing? And how does repeatedly saying "Seriously, please just stop" constitute real discussion? For the record, I have edited wikipedia for years anonymously and under other usernames (not simultaneously) and have always tried to work within the system. Your accusations are completely unfounded. If you don't stop this ridiculous attack on me I'll have to report you. TJ Black (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I stand by my actions, but respect your opinions. Deletion of sourced content and POV pushing equates to vandalism. Your actions have been disruptive. While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. That said, if you disagree and/or hold differing views with the content in an article, the appropriate action is not to outright remove sections and content. An available option includes presenting an inline notation that additional sources are needed, or that in your opinion, the source does not verify the content. You may want to consider doing some research and presenting another view, supported through reliable sources. In all cases, deleting sourced content (whether or not you agree that it verifies the content) or pushing a particular point of view, is not the answer. Regards, Cindamuse (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What sourced material did I remove? What POV did I push? That I think pimps are great? I don't believe that. When did I try to present a minority viewpoint or extraordinary claim alongside mainstream scholarship? Could you try to please actually address things I did or said? These repeated accusations are unseemly and strain AGF as they are so easily disprovable.
 * That said, if you wanted to reduce the material about tattoos to one sentence, not in it's own section, that would be ok and actually supported by the refs. One doesn't mention tattoos at all, the other only mentions them briefly in passing. They don't support the other material in that section, and you would know that if you'd read them. Reverting constructive edits, refusing to discuss content, and throwing around clearly false accusations are disruptive behaviors. TJ Black (talk) 05:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Correction: they both mention tattoos in passing, but still do not support the vast majority of the material in that section. Removal of unsourced material is not vandalism. Reverting constructive edits and throwing out false accusations are disruptive behavior. Whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not, your actions were completely inappropriate and there is no point in continuing the discussion. If you wish to discuss actual content, please reply on the article's talk page. But your accusations of vandalism and POV pushing are disruptive and if you continue I will have to report your actions on ANI. I really don't want to do that but I don't know how else to deal with an editor who refuses to engage other editors constructively. TJ Black (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I sincerely apologize that your experience on Wikipedia has been a bit disheartening. I sincerely believe that the article would benefit from your input through a presentation of alternate views, supported by reliable sources. However, the project is not benefited through blanking and deletion of content with which you disagree. Respectfully, I have attempted to reason with you to no avail. I have presented links to policy and guidelines, which have been disregarded. I have corresponded on your talk page, the article's talk page, and here. Your userpage also indicate a clear point of view, represented in your editing history. Again, this is disruptive. Further conversation appears to be fruitless. By all means, you are certainly welcome to contact the administrators' noticeboard, anytime. Best regards, Cindamuse (talk) 06:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And again you chose to make easily disproved accusations and personal attacks while claiming some moral high ground rather than engage in actual discussion of content. But I suppose if the content were important to you we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? 2 clicks would verify beyond any doubt that the material I removed isn't supported by the refs. That is a fact, not an opinion, and as much as I'd like to assume good faith on your part, I can only assume you haven't checked, or have and don't care. I've tried to discuss it, I've tried offering compromise, but all I've ever gotten in response is the same personal attacks, false accusations, and outright lies repeated ad nauseum.
 * While I do have my own opinions on these matters, I've never once added uncited material or removed cited material based on my view point. Again, a quick check of my edit history would verify this, making your accusations to the contrary suspect. It's extremely unfortunate that it's only possible for someone with strong opinions to open up dialogue about bring balance to these articles; weaker and less opinionated editors would be easily cowed by the intellectual thuggery you and other editors routinely practice.
 * If you believe so strongly that wikipedia's core policies don't apply to certain pages, than you should support my effort to create a template that marks such pages. It sounds a bit facetious, but I'm totally serious. Think of all the time it would save. It pimp had been appropriately marked as a page exempt from WP:NOR, I wouldn't have gone in and removed it. Problem solved.
 * I'll give it a couple of days, but if no other editors want to discuss the actual content, then I will reinstate my edits. If you revert or try to take admin action against me I'll have no choice but to take action. But since I foolish believe that all people are fundamentally reasonable, I hope you'll drop this ridiculous campaign. TJ Black (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you continue to delete sourced content and push your point of view, the issue will be escalated. No harm; no foul. It's nothing personal, really. Regards, Cindamuse (talk) 08:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm trying to be nice here, but you insist on pushing my buttons and making false accusations. I'd have every right to report you now. Let me make this perfectly clear: I did not remove sourced content. I did not push POV. Those are facts; your repeatedly stating the contrary is slanderous. If you wish to discuss content, please do so on the talk page. Otherwise walk away, as you are totally wrong in this situation. TJ Black (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

How Is A Link Directly to Dana Loesch's Tweet, stating it is here birthday on 28 Sept.
"unreliable" as you claimed, when you removed it? There is no other source I can find for her D.O.B., and what is more reliable than a linked quote, authored by the living person who is the subject of the Wikipedia article,? Link: http://twitter.com/Dloesch/statuses/25785639732 Thank you, Ruidoso (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)ruidoso


 * Please see WP:ELNO. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists are considered unreliable and inappropriate. Regards, Cindamuse (talk) 09:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please explain how a direct quote twitter entry from a semi-celebrity author, not a third party unverifiable entry, which is obviously what the, "Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists are considered unreliable", grounds you cited are intended to avoid, is applicable in this instance? Don't you have to put this in actual context? A twitter post, aka a "tweet" that stated that George Washington beat his wife, is clearly an invalid citation. Dana Loesch, posting a linkable statement,a "tweet" on her own twitter account, and account with 14,000 followers, that says, "today is my birthday" is obviously an exponentially more weighty bit of information than the third party George Washington example. If you cannot discern this difference, maybe it is time to re-examine your activities on wiki, in their entirety?" I'm somewhat amazed that I have to go to these lengths to make this point. A direct, linked quote, undeniably from the living person source of a living person wiki article, should not be deleted.... Thank you 184.77.33.182 (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)ruidoso
 * Simply put, anybody can be anybody online. Therefore, Wikipedia has determined that social networking sites are unreliable and inappropriate in support of article content. The circumstances under which social networking sites can be used is when they are directly linked from the official website of the subject of the article. That said, a reference is not needed in this case for the date of birth. On another note, please watch the personal attacks and remember to log in to your account when you comment or edit on Wikipedia. Thanks, Cindamuse (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

émaux de Briare
I am trying to translate & adapt an article that exists in France (émaux de Briare): will you kindly let me do just that before you make any hasty comment? Thank you Jcksa (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Getting started creating new articles on Wikipedia can be tricky. Since this is the English Wikipedia, we can only accept articles written in English. You might like to try creating a draft version first, which you can then ask for feedback on if necessary, without the risk of speedy deletion. Do make sure you also read help available to you, including Your First Article and the Tutorial. You might also like to try the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version. Either way, you need to translate your article prior to presenting it in the mainspace. If you have questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Cindamuse (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have userfied the article for him to translate in his user-space, and pointed him to WP:YFA and WP:BETTER. The reason for the existence of db-a2, which took me some time to discover, is that if an article is copy-pasted from another WP the attribution link to the original authors is lost. There is a way round that by putting translated page on the talk page with a link to the original - I have done that for him. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Alex Blanchard
Just an FYI, I deleted the article, but not because it was an attack page. It was deleted for lack of notability. The phrase "bad ass" is generally not a personal attack, just slang. Now if they left off the "bad" part, well, then that would be an attack page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on who you ask. ;) Non-notable potty mouth either way. LOL Happy editing! Cindamuse (talk) 07:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a pretty common phrase that the kids use in making articles about themselves or their friends. There generally is not any harm intended as it is not an insult really.  Sometimes you will see other common phrases like "is a beast" or "is a god" or "legend". -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Tongue in cheek. It's all good. ;) Cindamuse (talk) 08:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Gogo Dodo/Non-notable person buzzword bingo if you are curious. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hilarious! I needed that. Thanks. Cindamuse (talk) 08:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive is about to begin!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wikiproject Wikify at 00:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC).

The Signpost: 29 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Next drive
As you are either a participant of WikiProject or the October wikification drive or have signed up to participate in the planned December drive, this probably concerns you. Discussions that have been inactive for a couple weeks regarding the December drive have been reactivated, and we would like you to participate in these discussions, and also consider joining the December drive. We have taken upon ourselves a massive workload, encompassing a backlog reaching June 2008 and comprising articles. Barnstars will be awarded to participating editors, and also, please invite your friends to join! Please do not reply to this message here. Either reply here, here or here.

For the December Drive Coordinators,.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 23:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

Salem In The Beginning
Hi Cindamuse.

I see you that set up a redirect for the Salem In The Beginning entry to Salem (UK band).

I'm sorry, I can't find why this has been done? It is a plain, factual statement about a current album by a band that has its own Wikipedia page, and I believe it is suitably significant to be included here.

Thanks

PaulMacnamara (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the advice and help. PaulMacnamara (talk) 13:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Paul. This was done, because there was no article at the initial site. Another editor attempted to "move" Salem In The Beginning to In The Beginning (neither containing a written article). Later attempts were made to move from the new destination to other empty articles. Editors attempting to find an article ended up going in circles. I just cleaned up the dead links and directed the empty articles to the band's page. The notability criteria for albums can be found here. You are welcome to create the album article if it meets the criteria. I would recommend writing the article in a subpage of your userspace first. When complete, you can then move the article to In The Beginning ... (Salem album). Please keep in mind the requirements when writing with a conflict of interest. Feel free to contact me if you need help moving the article. Best regards, Cindamuse (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Cindamuse. Thanks for the info. A shame that the page has been lost. Never mind.  Please would direct me to template or example of a subpage?  PaulMacnamara (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC).
 * Click on this red link and create your article there. User:PaulMacnamara/In The Beginning ... (Salem album). Cindamuse (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks PaulMacnamara (talk) 08:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Cindamuse. I've created the subpage. Please check it and let me have your comments. Thanks.  PaulMacnamara (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Paul, while there are some minor concerns with WP:MOSBIO formatting, the primary concern is notability. Most songs and albums fail notability. The mere existence of an album does not permit an encyclopedia article. In order to meet the criteria for notability, the article needs several more references to support the content in the article. Make sure not to move the article to the mainspace until you have more references. If you move it prematurely, another editor will likely delete and "salt" the article and subject, which basically flags the article and triggers Wikipedia to reject future re-creations. Honestly, nobody wants that. The basic standard is to have a minimum of one reference for each paragraph. The references also have to be independent of the subject, which is basically coverage from a neutral publisher, not connected in any way to the band, production, or sales of the album. After you find more reliable references to establish notability, I will be happy to copyedit the article for you, just hit me back. Cindamuse (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I will include the independent references on the Salem (UK) page to support this article. PaulMacnamara (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Very cool. That should work, just make sure to add them as inline links. ;) Cindamuse (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Article updated so that it should stand on its own. Not really addressed the WP:MOSBIO formatting yet. Your comments please. Thanks PaulMacnamara (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. Any comments? PaulMacnamara (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Paul. At this point, the references do not support notability for this compilation album. Quantity of references does not equate to quality. A lot of time is spent in this article talking about early demos. The subject of the article appears to have been included as an afterthought. Notability needs to be established through significant coverage of the compilation album. The article is only supported by two references that actually mention the subject of the article, and as tracklists, they are not considered significant and cannot be used to establish notability. Are there any other sources that you can add that are written about the subject of the article? Without significant coverage, I would go ahead and move the three line paragraph mentioning the subject over to the band's article. Cindamuse (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to particpate in the December 2010 Wikification Drive
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 18:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

Break My Heart
Hey there, sorry for any confusion, I've used the wrong deletion reason here, it was redirected a while back (see here - probably should have used a G6 or A1. - eo (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Erroneous edits
The not-English tag is to be used for articles whose bodies are not written in English. It does not apply to DABs and re-directs. And frankly I do not care that you used Twinkle. Usage of an automated program does not preclude at least checking one's onwn edits. Please do not commit this mistake again. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 03:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When attempting to admonish another editor, using bad faith, remember to reference the article of which you are speaking. Please do not commit this mistake again. ;) Cindamuse (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * accusing you of being careless is not assuming bad faith on your part. DABs such as "北海" that are written in English should never have the "not-English" tag. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 16:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please provide a link to the article of which you are speaking. Thanks, Cindamuse (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In my last post I stopped just short of explicitly giving you a link (I gave you the title), and edits such as these are grave errors. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 16:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. You are right. My apologies. Rather than requesting translation, I should have followed the guidelines for redirecting and merging the article. Cindamuse (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

How do I do I move it to my user space?

Also, I'm confused about your determination on the Roots Web obit. It says, "He also started the first cable television commercial system that began in Sandy Lake and expanded to Stoneboro, Cochranton, Utica and Polk."

It does not say, "He also started the first cable television commercial system in Sandy Lake and expanded to Stoneboro, Cochranton, Utica and Polk."

There's a definite syntactical difference between the two statements insomuch as the first is saying "He began the first commercial cable system - and it began in Sandy Lake," whereas the second is saying, "He began the first commercial cable system Sandy Lake had."

I mean, if you want me to drive to Sandy Lake and question the man's family I will certainly do it because I'd hate to think that possibly someone who came up with or introduced an idea someplace would be plastered over after some others with more money took his idea and ran with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phill.Provance (talk • contribs) 21:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive Conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 23:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC).

Re: James F. Reynolds page
Thanks. I'll see if I can't track down the paper the obit was posted in. How many 3rd-party sources do you think would make the article sound? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phill.Provance (talk • contribs) 02:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Robert Langmead
Dear Cindamuse,

Thanks for your help and feedback. I am really interested in the food industry and I would like to contribute to Wikipedia as much as possible. Can you give me some advice on how I would properly write an entry for Robert Langmead or any other individual? Since Robert Langmead has been ranked in a very well-known magazine, Management Today, as one of Britain's top 100 entrepreneurs, and is mentioned regularly in trade publications and the national press, I am not sure I understand how this does not fulfill notability, having read the section.

Any help would be gratefully received!

Thanks,

Martinj1973 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinj1973 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)