User talk:Rosenbca

Success
You went live successfully! That link is just redirecting you from sandbox to the live article. Hope this helps. -dean (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Article review: Superior-subordinate communication
Hey there; it's your friendly campus ambassador(s) doing the rounds on your group's work so far!

It looks like your article is coming along quite nicely. Really the biggest suggestion I have is to read over the whole thing again and tighten up some of the wording—you have a few awkward sentences scattered around, but nothing that would break the article. Other than that, here are a few miscellaneous tips:
 * The page on upward communication has no reason to exist, now that you've written a better one. Now someone needs to recommend a merger to get rid of the redundant page.  Feel free to do this yourself if you like; it's good experience!
 * "Organization" doesn't need to be capitalized; the link will still work.
 * The last sentence in Openness in Communication ("Supervisory messages...") sounds important, but I can't understand how it relates to the topic. Can you elaborate on that and tie them together?
 * Under Relationship Maintenance, the third point (appearing impressive to the superior) doesn't make sense. Again, elaborate!
 * Good job on the "see also" list, but you can probably take out the last three links. Shareholder and Superior aren't that helpful in understanding your topic, and Upward communication is just a useless article (see above).
 * When you're citing the same reference several times, you can actually put something in the "name" field (e.g. "Jablin") the first time you cite it. Then, when you want to refer to it again, just click on the clipboard next to "named references" and pull it up from the dropdown menu.  Much cleaner.

Overall, good work! -Veret (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed
I think I fixed it for you. Let me know if you have any more issues. :D -dean (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
meowww. you're PURRRTTTYYY

Dashtaem (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)  greasyyyy. yummmm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMWJMU (talk • contribs) 21:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Good news and Bad news
Okay, so I'm going to assume that you all created your references before you all made sure there was a reflist tag on your page. Under that assumption I have created sandbox two on your user page; in that I copied and pasted all the work from your original sandbox, but deleted all your references. In sandbox two, I have started your reflist and put in a fake reference within the lead. At this point go back and reenter all the references from the original sandbox. Once, you have successfully added in a reference, you can go ahead and delete the fake one. Sorry that the fix isn't something less of a pain. -dean (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Transactional Leadership - Comments
Overall your group has done a good job of meeting Wikipedia standards, just wrap up things and you all will be ready to go live. When you do go live make sure in the reason box that you put that; "This article discusses Transactional Leadership, which is currently not covered on Wikipedia. As well, this article was created by students participating in the Wikipedia education program." -dean (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Education Program Student Survey
Hi! Please take a few minutes to fill out this survey about the Wikipedia Education Program. This is our opportunity to improve the program and resources we provide students, so your feedback and input is integral to our future success. Thank you so much! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)