This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

As you are aware, the community consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abolition of Prostitution was that this article is not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Some editors felt that some material could be merged into Prostitution and the law, but in nearly two months that hasn't happened. Regardless, any editor could easily access the history to do merging if they were so inclined. The community consensus is that the page as it stands should not be on wikipedia, your actions are directly in contradiction to that consensus, and to accuse someone of vandalism for acting in support of that consensus is not constructive. Given your actions and long history of POV-pushing in sex work-related articles, I could easily take this to ANI, but since I have this unfortunate tendency to try to assume good faith I'm appealing to you to put aside your viewpoints and try work with other editors rather than disrupt the project. I'm not going to let you drag me into some edit war, so I'll merely restore the consensus edit and leave it there. If you continue to pursue disruptive editing this will have to be taken to ANI.

Since you feel strongly about this topic I encourage you to take the lead on the merging; most other editors don't seem to feel there is anything to be merged, so it's unlikely to happen otherwise. Simply stalling and waiting for someone else to do the merging is just a tactic to avoid complying with the community consensus. TJ Black (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Hi TJ. I have restored the article, in preparation for a merge. This has been done in accordance with community consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abolition of Prostitution, which resulted in a directive to merge. The AfD consensus was formalized after a debate involving several editors. The discussion at Talk:Prostitution and the law#Abolition of Prostitution merger, with one out of (only) three supporting the merger does not override the community consensus at AFD. Maintaining the article rather than a redirect provides instructions for other editors to participate in any discussions pertaining to the merge. I agree with your encouragement to take the lead on merging the article. Over the past few months, my time has been centered on working with students and professors as an Ambassador with the Public Policy Initiative. The semester recently ended. Earlier today, I began working on merging these two articles. Please understand that regardless of any personal viewpoint I may have, I am solely focused on compliance with Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and standards for quality. Honestly, when it comes to the issue of human trafficking, pornography, prostitution, or any like-minded subject associated with the sex industry, in my role on Wikipedia, I am more than able to separate my personal interests from my assessments and review of article style and tone, or whether a specific topic meets the topical or general notability criteria for inclusion. There are actually editors on both sides of these issues that consider me "the enemy". I can be your strongest advocate, if your goals are in alignment with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I'm not the enemy. My goal here is to bring clarification and balance through merging these two articles. Nothing more. To that end, I welcome all interested editors to participate in any discussion regarding the AFD consensus to merge. Maintaining the article provides direction in participating in this process. Redirecting the article disregards the process established by Wikipedia and hinders the ability for other editors, primarily newer editors, to work in bringing the merge to fruition. Best regards, Cind.amuse 02:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • There is absolutely no need to restore an article "in preparation for a merge." To merge, one can take text from the archived versions. Restoring it goes against the consensus to merge, which is one click short of delete. The only reason it was not deleted was to maintain its text history to enable a merge of whatever useful information (not much in this case) it contained. Binksternet (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
    • There is no consensus to redirect or delete this article. The consensus in the AFD discussion is to merge. Wikipedia's Guide to Deletion in response to AFD outcomes specifically states, "Merge is a recommendation to keep the article's content but to move it into some more appropriate article. It is either inappropriate or insufficient for a stand-alone article. After the merger, the article will be replaced with a redirect to the target article (in order to preserve the attribution history)." Administrative actions direct us to mark both pages by adding ((Afd-mergeto)) and ((Afd-mergefrom)) to the top of their respective pages. Upon removing the ((afd)) notice (if still present), add the ((Afd-merge to)) tag to the top of the nominated article. This lets as many users involved in those pages know that content is to be merged as a result of a deletion discussion. It is the involved editors' job, rather than the closing administrators' job to perform the merger. The appropriate response when an AFD consensus results in a merge is not to circumvent the deletion policy and process guidelines through redirection or deletion. In accordance with the AFD consensus and administrative guidelines, the reinstatement of the redirection is inappropriate. Therefore, I have restored the article in compliance with community standards. While I appreciate your passion and obvious good faith attempt to bring clarity, the action to redirect prior to merging is ill advised and contrary to the deletion process. Throughout this week, I will continue to work on merging the two articles. After the merge is complete, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, I will redirect the article. If you have questions during this time, please feel free to contact me. Best regards, Cind.amuse 08:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The Wikifier Your Wikification Newsletter – Volume I, Issue II, March 2011 From the editor • General news Membership • February drive results To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Hello Wikifiers! Sorry this Newsletter is late, It should have gone out a month ago. I've been very busy in real life and didn't have time to get over to the newsletter. In this edition of the Newsletter, we have an editorial written by our new executive coordinator; Guoguo12. Guoguo12 has succeeded Mono due to an indefinite wikibreak. We also have the results of the February and March Mini drives. Happy Wikifying, Sumsum2010, the assistant coordinator of WikiProject Wikify

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 01:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC).

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, you have recently deleted and editing some information on the Birthright Armenia's organization page; however now the information is not correct. "summer volunteer internship program to assist in the development of Armenia." is not what the organization does directly and that is what the previous content has been changed to. Is there any way to change it back to the previous text to correctly give this message?

Also is there any tips/tools you can give on creating that page again as to not be 'promotional' because it has been edited on numerous occassions, and it is either too promotional or there is not enough content detailing the page.

Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G0h4r (talk • contribs) 07:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for contacting me. After reading the organization's website, I tried to offer a definition. If the statement is incorrect, please feel free to change it. As far as editing, there is often semantic confusion over the definition of publicity, promotion, and advertising. Mere publicity, promotion, and advertising need not reference sales or reviews pertaining to the quality or feasibility of the subject of the article. One of the ways to better understand the criteria pertaining to appropriate inclusion on Wikipedia is to determine if the article has been written or edited in an attempt to manage the public's perception of the subject of the article. Common promotional content that is often added to articles include staffing and organizational structure outside of executive roles; detailed presentations of programming, goods, and services; announcement of corporate events; and instructional and directional content. Rather than using Wikipedia as an alternative version of the organization's website, the article needs to present significance and importance of the subject, establishing notability through reliable secondary and third-party sources. Hope this helps. Please feel free to contact me anytime you have questions. Best regards, Cind.amuse 09:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I think you could help with the Prostitution and the law article. About the image: the original description as written in the legend for the color blue by the person who created the image is "Prostitution (the exchange of sex for money) is legal, but organized activities such as brothels and pimping are illegal; prostitution is not regulated". This original description has been changed by several editors. My edits yesterday were in response to User:Unreal7 who has made a change to the image description yesterday, so I changed it again to what I thought was clearer. Anyway, we should have the original text , I believe. Also, maybe you could offer your opinion here:Talk:Prostitution_and_the_law#Image_description and maybe you could also help with the merging of Abolition_of_Prostitution. Prostitution and the law needs a lot of work and maybe you could help? 123username (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Hello and thanks for contacting me. Obviously, I read the image information wrong. Don't know what's up wit dat. I am working on merging content offline, planning on completing the merge by next week. That said, personal health issues are taking precedence right now, so my editing is not as consistent as it usually is. I don't think my input on the discussion page will be a positive addition to the conversation. While I really don't have a horse in this race, every edit or comment I make pertaining to prostitution, pornography, or the sex industry in an effort to communicate Wikipedia policy and guidelines, ends in misguided accusations. I'm simply not interested in playing the games. That said, I'll offer a short response. Thanks again for contacting me. Best regards, Cind.amuse 11:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

If my comments came across as being too critical I apologize. I can see that you and a few other editors have tried to explain things to the editor in question, I just felt that 'nofootnotes' plus a 'citation needed' on every statement was a little much. This is a difficult one as FF seems to be constructive in their intentions but problematic in their interactions with other editors. It seems that some are determined to see every article that they created deleted, or at least would be easy to get that impression looking at their talk page. At least some of those articles are about notable subjects. I'll attempt to point FF in the right direction.--Michig (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, please let me clarify. I don't and didn't sense your tone or comments as too critical. I am frustrated with the situation. Clearly, you just waded in to a place with FF where others have spent several weeks attempting to reason with him to no avail. I have simply arrived at the point where I have essentially thrown my hands up in the air in surrender. That rarely happens with me. Yes, I agree that "nofootnotes" and "citationneeded" are overkill. And yet, FF did not understand the meaning of "nofootnotes" and asked for direction, thus, "citationneeded" on steroids. I honestly believe that most of FFs articles may in reality be notable. That said, I am a bit sore feeding the horse, only to get kicked in the backside for setting out the oats. Good luck with FF. I'm in your corner. Best regards, Cind.amuse 23:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi! This is the last call for signing on for a Wikipedia Ambassador hooded sweatshirt (in case you missed the earlier message in one of the program newsletters about it). If you would like one, please email me with your name, mailing address, and (US) sweatshirt size. We have a limited number left, so it will be first-come, first-served. (If more than one size would work for you, note that as well.)

Cheers, Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand that this page was speedy deleted due to a violation of promotional content. As it reads, the page does not include correct information and lacks some thereof. In comparing it to a very similar page (Birthright Israel), I noticed that there was information included on their page that was deleted on the Brthright Armenia side. Since you are the one that speedy deleted it, is there any way you could go into detail of why this was done, and what would be able to be included that was previously there? Thank you. Amg921 (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, the Birthright Armenia page was not speedy deleted. However, there has been extensive editing to remove promotional content, along with copyright violations and close paraphrasing of http://www.birthrightarmenia.org/pages.php?al=how_works and http://www.birthrightarmenia.org/pages.php?al=volunteer_internship. I haven't worked on the Birthright Israel article, but off hand, one of the primary differences in the articles pertain to sourcing. While I have not reviewed the BI article, I am not aware of any copyright violations or close paraphrasing. Please keep in mind though, that oftentimes, an editor will attempt to create or edit one article, using a separate article as a guideline or example. Generally, this really isn't a good idea, since the article used as an example may also be incorrect. If you see content in the Birthright Armenia article that is incorrect, I would like to welcome you to present the differences on the talk page of the article. I highly recommend providing independent and reliable references for any content you may suggest for the article. Lacking sources, the content cannot be added. If you are able, I would also recommend pruning the external links in the article, to include only the three most important links. Is it possible that some of these links can be used as citations for content in the article?
  
  Please note, if you are working on behalf of BA, it is recommended that you review our policy on conflicts of interest. Oftentimes, it is difficult for individuals to appropriately edit articles on behalf of others. Generally, their purpose and intent is to assist in managing the public's perception of the individual, group, or organization. This is contrary to the goals of Wikipedia, and falls within the guidelines prohibiting promotional content. Individuals with a conflict of interest are not forbidden from editing an article, however, their edits are closely monitored by seasoned editors in order to offer assistance to make sure that the article meets our policies and guidelines, which will keep it from being deleted. (Which nobody wants.) To that end, if you have any other questions or need help with anything, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Cind.amuse 01:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I'm just letting you know I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Suspected trolling regarding the above user. As you are indirectly involved, I thought you might wish to contribute. Thank you. LordVetinari (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Cindy, you welcomed me a couple of weeks ago when I joined wikipedia and I don't think I ever thanked you for that. I appreciate you sharing your background, I see very few people do that, but I believe that is a sign of an open personality and pureness in spirit. I also see that you are an ambassador of Wikipedia, which is commendable. Well, all I wanted to say was that it was very nice of you to welcome me. Best. --Doktor Plumbi (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for editing Fussville, Wisconsin. I added citations from GNIS and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Fussville is not a village, it was an unincorporated community that was annexed to the village of Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin. There is the Political subdivisions of Wisconsin article that you might want to read. I like being part of the Wisconsin WikiProject being familiar with the history, geography, culture, politics, etc, of my native State of Wisconsin. Many thanks for what you do for Wikipedia.RFD (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ambassador,

We are at a pivotal point in the development of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. Your feedback will help shape the program and role of Ambassadors in the future. Please take this 10 minute survey to help inform and improve the Wikipedia Ambassadors.

WMF will de-identify results and make them available to you. According to KwikSurveys' privacy policy: "Data and email addresses will not be sold, rented, leased or disclosed to 3rd parties." This link takes you to the online survey: http://kwiksurveys.com?u=WPAmbassador_talk

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments, Thank You!

Amy Roth (Research Analyst, Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's June Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by about 900 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions! If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks! Note: The drive starts June 1, but you can still sign up!

Sumsum2010·T·C 04:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:10th Earl of Shaftesbury and Lady Bianca Shaftesbury 1966.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 22:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jamila M'Barek on trial in 2007.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 22:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mohammed M'Barek on trial in 2007.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 22:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello cindamuse, thank your for your quick and friendly reply to the bespoke article. I understand the conflict of interest - rookie mistake I suppose. However, I attempted to write the article as information-focussed as possible and believe have achieved to do so as the article is online - even if so with another structure. If the article has been proofread, which I supposed it has - would it be possible to go back to the original structure? (essentially another headline for the HydroDyn system). Also the link for the founder of the company leads to another Michael Hofmann - so I'd like to change that. Thanks in advance, M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvp st (talk • contribs) 12:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Welcome to Wikipedia! I made the changes to the article. As far as the COI goes, please make sure to read the applicable links provided on your talk page... and follow the instructions for changing your username. I would focus on resolving the issues highlighted at the top of the article. Primarily, articles are kept on Wikipedia according to notability guidelines. Organizations require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. While the sources provided are in the German language, they appear to be news and press releases presented by the company. This issue concerns one of reliability. Please note, that articles on Wikipedia require clear indication of significance or importance of the subject. This information should be placed in the lead paragraph. While I am not familiar with the technology of CVP, I did not nominate the article for deletion. Another editor differently. Change your user name and focus on those issues, and the article may be safe from deletion. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Cind.amuse 12:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ringo Starr and wife Maureen.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 17:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Cindamuse. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Vent d'Est, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Website is licensed as CC-BY-SA. Thank you. Alexf^(talk) 19:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering if you could explain 2 of the 3 multiple issues you tagged on this new article [1] as there is no ES or talk page note. It seems to me the article is wikified, so I am wondering what you think can be cleaned up?. There are there are 3 links-- I will try to add more--but how many would be enough? -Regards-KeptSouth (talk)

• Just want to double check. Are you referring to the StudentsFirst article? I'm not sure, since a maintenance tag to wikify isn't on that article. And you mentioned three links, while this article has several references. Can you clarify? Let me know and I'll be happy to help out. Cind.amuse 06:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, I was referring to the change you made in the diff, and asking what you thought could be cleaned up. I was referring to the orphan tag when I asked how many links would be enough to remove it because at the time the tag was placed, the article was linked by 3 others. Thank you for removing the tags and adding the paragraph break.--Regards--KeptSouth (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I have to be honest, I had a face palm when I realized the article was linked three times. I don't know what I was doing at that moment. Hope it works now. Thanks for contacting me. Best regards, Cind.amuse 00:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

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) 14:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a few questions regarding editing that was done on the Birthright Armenia page. The following are the editing notifications, but I am unclear on what needs to be done because I changed the information and references from previously to fix this but they are still shown.

1. "This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate. (May 2011)"

2. "The topic of this article may not meet the notability guidelines for companies and organizations. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. (April 2011)" Amg921 (talk) 07:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• I went ahead and removed the "more footnotes" template, since a sufficient number are present for the size of prose. Contact User:Kudpung for any questions on notability, since he is the editor that flagged the issue. Feel free to contact me if you need additional assistance. Best regards, Cind.amuse 08:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this not a reliable source? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• The website is considered unreliable by Wikipedia, in the same manner as blogs. Daryll oftentimes relies on word of mouth, personal family trees, and email messages from other individuals working on their genealogy. He also uses Wikipedia as a source for genealogical data. That said, we can use his website as a prompt for other sources that may satisfy verifiability. For example, if he gives a source for something such as Burkes Peerage, it will be easy for us to review that source for accuracy and use it as a reference. Another thing that messes with verifiability is that every time Daryll adds an individual to his database, the URL changes. A lot of different issues, but overall, the website is unreliable for use as a reference. Cind.amuse 15:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Fair enough, thanks. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me mark the article Teachinghistory.org for deletion. I misunderstood how page moves v. new articles worked. My apologies, and I appreciate the help. Chandlery (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• No problem. Please feel free to contact me anytime you have questions or need assistance. Best regards, Cind.amuse 17:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

How does G2 apply to this article. It clearly isn't a test, the creator of the attempted redirect is absolutely doing the right thing (most new editors will try and make a cut-and-paste move when they realise they have created an article at the incorrect topic). In my opinion, it should be tagged G6 so that it can be moved to the article can be moved to the correct capitalisation. I was tempted to just do that immediately, but thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. So, could you please explain the G2 tag? Jenks24 (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• It's both a G6 and G2. One or the other. While the editor essentially wanted to move the article, unaware of the process. Testing one method, he created a redirect from the correct capitalization to the poorly titled article. A bit backwards and certainly not doing the right thing (however, the attempt is admirable). This is called a test edit. Your statement doesn't make sense: "so that it can be moved to the article can be moved to the correct capitalisation." I think we're speaking the same language though. At this point the test edit needs to be deleted so that the improperly titled article may be moved, rather than redirected, to the proper title. But on the other hand, the poorly titled article is an A7 autobio, so take your pick. Cind.amuse 08:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Ugh, yep, sorry about that mangled sentence (but I think you got the point). The reason that G6 is preferable to G2, in my opinion, is that it doesn't slap another template's on the creator's talk page. I think it's a bit unfair to characterise the attempted redirect as a test, as the creator wasn't trying to test how redirects work, but actually trying to create a beneficial redirect. If you use such a broad statement to define test, nearly every article that some through Special:NewPages could be defined as a test. In any case, I see the actual article has been deleted (by RHaworth) so the redirect needed to go. Rather than tagging G2 though, wouldn't it have been better to make the page move to the correct capitalisation in the first place? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
    • "Rather than tagging G2 though, wouldn't it have been better to make the page move to the correct capitalisation in the first place?" Sure, if it would have been possible, but it wasn't. A move would only be possible after deleting the editor's redirect, which was clearly an attempt to test the system to see if the redirect would result in the desired move. Sorry, I think you simply misunderstand the situation. I rarely use the G2, but with this article, it was clearly inline with the criteria. Nothing fair or unfair about it, it's just the process of editing. Best regards, Cind.amuse 00:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Sorry for the ridiculously late reply to this; I had watchlisted your talk, but somehow missed your reply. Not wishing to bring this issue back up, but just wanting to let you know that any autoconfirmed user can move a page over a redirect, so long as the redirect only has one revision. The point I was trying to make above was that before you applied the G2 tag it only had one revision (if I recall correctly) and it would have been possible for either me or you to move the article over the redirect. But once you applied the tag, it became impossible for a non-admin to move the article. Again, not trying to bring the issue up, just letting you know as I often find it's quite useful to be able to move over redirects without having to get an admin involved. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Hey there, not to be a downer, but I honestly don't remember this article anymore. Could be that my brain is in a fog at the moment. Either way, hope everything is kosher in your little corner of the world. Cind.amuse 11:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cindamuse. I've had a few articles flagged lately and notice that you flagged the article I posted for Oceus Networks. I wonder how I might improve it for relevance. I figured the investment into the group alone was enough to make it fairly significant. I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia editing so any thoughts you have to offer would no doubt be very valuable. Thanks! Ratfinx (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Hello, Ratfinx! Essentially, it appears that you are writing articles about organizations that simply haven't established notability. When we write articles about organizations, we must show notability through "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This is called the general notability guideline, which is reflective of the template I added to the article.
  
  Oceus Networks is a brand new organization. Notability at this point is unlikely. Of the three sources provided, one is a link to the organization's "About Us" section on their website. Another reference is a press release announcing the existence of the organization along with one of their products and links to their website, Facebook, and Twitter. Neither the organization's website or the press release are independent of the subject. Under any circumstance, we do not use press releases. The third source used for the article is to the Washington Post, announcing the purchase of a division from Ericsson and naming it Oceus, with the statement that the organization is seeking to establish its new brand. While Ericsson is notable, the new organization is working toward that end. If you are unable to locate significant coverage of the organization, beyond mere mentions of its existence, I'm afraid the article may be deleted. The tag that I placed is basically a prompt of the needs of the article in order for it to remain. (Whenever you have questions about a tag on an article, click through the blue links to read the guidelines.)
  
  Other issues? A review of the articles that you have written reveal a lot of what we call "original research" or "unverified claims". Unverified claims either need to be supported by a reliable source that is independent of the subject... or removed from the article.
  
  Take a look at the PQ Media article. There are entire sections that are unsupported by references. When we write articles, we use outside sources on which to base the article. Some people will write an article and then try to find content on which to support what they have already written. This is basically putting the horse before the cart and appears to be the process under which you are creating articles.
  
  On the 2011 African Union Summit article, you don't define the Summit for the readers. You basically only provide the date that it is being held, the leaders, and the participants. Therefore, the article is highly promotional. Try to rewrite the article. Provide the history of the Summit. When did it start? Who are the past leaders? What is the purpose or goals? What accomplishments have been made toward their goals? I would go ahead and remove the list of countries altogether. All you really need to say in the article is that there 53 countries that participate. At the very least, you need to remove all of the flags, since they are not in accordance with the Manual of Style.
  
  The United States Embassy in Malabo needs copy editing. You also have an entire section directly copied from a press release. The article needs additional sources that are independent of the subject.
  
  The issues with the Kissinger Institute on China and the United States are much like the articles above. Of the three sources provided, two are from the organization's own website. These are not independent and accordingly, notability is questioned. The article needs significant support through reliable and independent sources. Much like the 2011 African Union Summit article, you don't define the Institute for the readers. Try to rewrite the article. Provide the history of the Summit. When did it start? Who are the past leaders? What is the purpose or goals? What accomplishments have been made toward their goals? Remove the list of all the members. Content of this nature changes changes constantly inline with turnover. We only need information on the two chairmen, which can be inserted appropriately in the infobox. On that note, an incorrect infobox is being used. It should use Template:Infobox institute or Template:Infobox organization.
  
  Hope all this helps. Feel free to contact me if you have questions. And remember that whenever you have questions about a tag on an article, click through the blue links to read the guidelines. Best regards, Cind.amuse 02:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cindamuse, I'm new to the wiki universe. Just trying to understand the system and knowledge it presents. I created a page(?) for the school where I work, but you redirected it to the main page for Kalispell, Montana. Did I post it in the wrong manner? Or this there something else I should have done? I like using Wikipedia for research and learning information, but I logged on tonight (for the first time) to start a page. This is in response to an assignment. If you could give me some pointers so my page does not get taken down, or where I should add my information, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance. ConsciousRipple (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Well, first off, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you'll consider sticking around. As far as the East Evergreen Elementary School article, our notability guidelines instruct us to redirect elementary and junior high school articles to the school district article or that of the city or town in which it is located. Generally, only high schools are considered inherently notable. Primary schools may occasionally qualify as notable, based on individual circumstances of something significantly newsworthy taking place at the school. As a suggestion, I was quite surprised that the school district did not have an article already on Wikipedia. Would you consider creating one? It would be a tremendous asset to the community. Additionally, all the schools in the district could be mentioned in that article, including elementary and junior high schools. I hope this wouldn't be too much of a task, but it seems that you would be in a perfect position to have access to significant amounts of information. I would also like to invite you to check out our WikiProject that focuses on education. (Just click on the blue link.) The project is made up of a group of editors working together as a team to improve articles on Wikipedia, pertaining to education. In either case, please feel free to contact me anytime you have questions or need help. Best regards, Cind.amuse 07:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, Thank you for the great advice. I was unsure why my information disappeared, but now it makes perfect sense. I am going to attempt a new start with our school district and add to it (and maybe others will add as well) as my time permits. I may need to seek out your help again, but for now, I am going to forge ahead and see what I can produce. Thank you again. ConsciousRipple (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

hi cindamuse! thx for your info. reading your comment on my talk page after my edit of the Area 51 (website) talk page. anyway my basic idea was to have a page to link to for the disambiguation, but i can see that this collides with the minimal standards for pages. therefore i have put the content from Area 51 (website) on Stack Exchange Network, but my question is: do i link from Area 51 (disambiguation) to Area 51 (website) and redirect from there to the content on Stack Exchange Network, or do i link to the content dirdctly from Area 51 (disambiguation)? Halloleo (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Hey there! Glad that you came back on before the article was deleted. I would go ahead and create a link on the Area 51 (disambiguation) to Stack Exchange Network and state something like:

• Stack Exchange Network provides an "Area 51" forum to assist users in creating Q&A websites

(Keep in mind, I have no idea what Area 51 or Stack Exchange Network is outside of Wikipedia. You'll have to reword the above so it makes sense in the real world.) Hope I helped even a little bit. Cind.amuse 08:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

re your edit [2] please join the conversation [3] Thanks! Active Banana (^bananaphone 07:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You should not be adding delete when you nominate an article for AfD. As you are nominating the article, you are already stating that you vote delete. One of the first times I did and AfD, my delete was removed for the same reason as have others. Take a look at today's log and you will hard pressed to find another nominator saying delete.

Also, I personally think you are not assuming good faith in doing an Afd on a 39-minute old article. I highly doubt that Cheyenne Monique is notable, but atleast wait a week or so as to not bite the new user. Maybe a better route would be to discuss the shortcomings of the article with the author first.

A repeat sockpuppet told those of use fighting him that we would all go to hell. We shouldn't be offending new users because in hell, we need all the friends we can.... It will be a hard job trying to vandalize God's wiki. Bgwhite (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for contacting me. 1. If you had another editor modify your comments or nomination in an earlier discussion, or if this happens to you in the future, by all means, revert the modification. Our talk page and deletion discussion guidelines specifically address the lack of propriety in modifying the comments of other editors. 2. The nomination for deletion is made at the top of the AFD entry. Recommendations and rationale are made below, preceded with an asterisk. There are no guidelines advocating for or against an editor preceding their nomination with a delete notation. 3. The nomination of the Cheyenne Monique article was made in good faith, applicable with our deletion policy. There are no guidelines that support your suggested timeline. A discussion with the editor would not result in notability of the subject of this article. The claims of importance, significance, and notability in the article are based on vast exaggerations. The subject's background and participation in the films listed in the article is limited to extra and uncredited roles. None of the sources provided are reliable or independent. Since the article claims importance, however erroneous, our deletion process calls for sending the article for deletion discussion, rather than speedy deletion. Accordingly, this is the process followed. 4. I respect that you may have your own personal ideals and manner of editing on Wikipedia. That said, when others work appropriately within the policies and guidelines developed by the community, please refrain from assuming that others not sharing your ideals are assuming bad faith. 5. I don't understand the context in which you present the sockpuppet, hell, and God's wiki. That said, sounds like it was an interesting conversation. Best regards, Cind.amuse 22:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Cindamuse, thank you for taking the time to edit the aiCIO page and to voice your concerns. I'm looking forward to working with you to improve the page so that it meets the standards of Wikipedia.

Your main concern about the notability of the magazine I think can be easily satisfied. For one, aiCIO has receieved several accolades, namely its "Interrogations" section was a 2011 Jesse H. Neal Award finalist in the category of Best Subject-Related Series of Articles, Class A (Up to $3,000,000 in gross advertising/circulation revenue). The link can be found at this address: http://www.americanbusinessmedia.com/abm/Neals_2011.asp?SnID=1028434890. In 2009, ai5000 (its former name) was an Ozzie Award Silver Winner in the Best Design New Magazine, B-to-B. Link can be found here--http://www.foliomag.com/2009/2009-ozzie-winners --(you have to scroll down a bit).

The Commercial Observer wrote a story in November 2009 about the formation of the the new magazine: http://cluster.omgit.net/2009/commercial-observer/publisher-asset-international-moves-manhattan-cohen-brothers%E2%80%99-805-third.

Let me know if these sources are sufficient. I am eager to work with you to make this article fit Wikipedia standards. Thanks, Bruffel (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's another link on ai5000's launch: http://www.minonline.com/news/ai5000-Aims-for-the-Super-Money_11521.html. Bruffel (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Hey there! I'm so glad you contacted me. Definitely add the information about the awards to the article. This truly helps establish the notability of the magazine. I'm out for the day, but this information should suffice and answer any questions about notability. Make sure to mention in the lead section that the magazine has won awards. The purpose of the lead section summarizes the rest of the article and presents notability. You should be fine. I'll check back and see if I can lend any support this afternoon. Let me know if you have any questions. Great work! Cind.amuse 15:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• I made some formatting changes. Additional content that you may want to consider adding to the article includes an overview of the awards that are presented by aiCIO. It would also enhance the article if you could maybe a photo of the magazine cover and a link to the "Interrogations" article. Maybe a photo of the magazine's headquarters? the building? Take a look at the article. I added a couple of sections, which are now empty. Just an idea. If you can add content, great! If not, just remove the section headings. I'm here if you need help or ideas. Cind.amuse 02:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The citation[4] doesn't state that a completed film screened at the festival. What it does indicate is that the trailer screened, and that principal photography has wrapped and the filmmaker is looking for festivals, while the product is completed... being in post-production until Fall. The trailer screening DID get the buzz the filmmaker hoped for, and I have added additional sources to a now-cleaned-up article, but the article is premature by a couple months. As the author has expressed a good faith wish to continue working on the article, I think he should be allowed to do so... off of mainspace.... with userfication or incubation as reasonable avenues. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• We're on the same page. I actually just recommended to userfy the article. Then I came to check my messages. You are correct that only the trailer was shown. I don't think I want to see the movie though. I think I'll stick with chick flicks. I'm also there for a good action film. Horror and demons. No thanks. But I digress... Cind.amuse 00:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I hope the new author understands that he effort was just a bit premature, and that we appreciate the efforts to contribute. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Cindamuse. You have new messages at Allen4names's talk page.
Message added 17:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

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) 11:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cindamuse. I just wanted to drop by and thank you for your kind words in my RfA. I appreciate every support, of course, but yours in particular cheered my week greatly. I will do my best to ensure your confidence in me is not misplaced. Best, 28bytes (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Well deserved. Congratulations! Cind.amuse 10:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cindy, While I understand the tags about the "lead section" and "general clean up", is there some ballpark number of links an article should have to avoid it getting the "few links/orphan" tag? I mean, this one for sure has one, how many more are we talking so that I have an idea? Thanks, Sharda Mandir (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for contacting me. Generally, an article with three or fewer links is considered orphaned. You can find more information here. As far as the lede section, the article is currently at about 11kb, so one or two lede paragraphs at the most should suffice. Just keep in mind that the lede simply serves to present the notability of the subject, as well as a short summary of the article. Please feel free to contact me anytime you need help or have any questions. Best regards, Cind.amuse 10:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi Cindy, Thanks for the reply.While a general definition of an orphan is what you pointed out, currently the criteria for jugdging an article as orphan is as follows " Currently our priority is to focus on orphans with NO incoming links at all, and it is recommended to only place the orphan tag if the article has ZERO incoming links from other articles. One or two incoming links may be sufficient as long as they are relevant." So, while I am trying to insert new links to create good network of links for this article, would you agree that having an orphan tag currently added might not be justified? Thanks, Sharda Mandir (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Hi Cindy, I don't know about the Seattleites but we Portlanders are known for being weird and we love to keep it that way. So, speaking of weird, I burnt the midnight oil over the weekend (...if you will) to get the article I was editing (Bhagwan Gopinath) hopefully upto your expectations. I shortened the lead from 5 paragraphs to 2, added 2 more links which makes it a total of 3 now, and improved the style with a lot of general clean up. If you think that should be good to go, let me know if I can remove the tags or better still, I would be obliged (and elated at the same time!) if you kindly do the honors!!! Many Thanks in advance, Sharda Mandir (talk) 08:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Portlanders? Weird? Nah, it's definitely a northwest thang. It's currently 4:35am and I haven't slept yet. ACK! I would be happy to take a look and clean up the article, if it would be okay with you. I generally try to clean up articles left and right, but when another editor is actively working on it, I just try to give some pointers and help where I can. I hesitate to jump in and edit the article to keep from inadvertently stepping on anyone's toes. Let me know, and I will be happy to jump in and tie up any loose ends. Now, get some sleep! Cind.amuse 11:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
        • and I thought only us Portlanders were entitled to call ourselves so...guess not anymore! If you don't mind, I'd love to start first with some pointers from you and see how it goes from there. Best R Sharda Mandir (talk) 06:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
          • No problem working on the article yourself. I'll just give you a few pointers at a time. 1. It is recommended that editors use the preview button before saving; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Edit the page, rather than section. 2. The lead section basically has four paragraphs condensed into two. It needs extensive editing. 3. Section headings need editing and revised. 4. Sections that are indented need to be reformatted. 5. Review the Manual of Style for compliance overall re: italic, bold, layout, etc. This all should be a start. Let me know where you have questions. ;) Cind.amuse 09:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
            • Thats sounds fantastic! I'd take a step at a time, so how about fixing the lead first? If you can basically give me an idea of what you are think would be ideal lead (may be right here to preview it) I would appreciate that a lot! Sharda Mandir (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
              • Hi Cindy, so I fixed the lede and reformatted paragarphs with indents (Check it out and let me know your views). Regarding the manual of style (bold, italics etc) this is what I have followed (let me know what needs to change) - For religious texts - start in caps and word in non italics, for name/s of Deities/Gods - start in caps and word in non italics, for rest of the foreign words - word in italics and start with non caps. I don't have bolds anywhere except the subject name in lede. Also please let me know specifically changes you desire to see in section headings so that I dont have to double guess. Many Thanks for your help... Sharda Mandir (talk) 07:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Elections are currently underway for our Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days and ends on June 30, 23:59 UTC. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! There is also a referendum to appoint a Coordinator Emeritus. Cast your vote today.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I do agree that the article may seem biased because of my position. However, my writing reflects, to the best of my ability, the attitudes of the secondary sources. There has been no embellishment of GHCC's involvement in any of the programs or initiatives; both successes and failures are being referenced. GHCC has been an important part of the history of north central Baltimore, MD including its public schools and the public school system(AmeriCorp VISTAs work with PTA and PTOs, close work with Andre Alonso, new Waverly School building, securing school funding with Baltimore Education Coalition, bringing Experience Corps to Baltimore City, being the first organization to establish a COACH program outside of Massachusetts, neighborhoods(Live Where You Work initiative, AmeriCorps VISTA hub, neighborhood coordinators, Baltimore City Fair, housing code enforcement, development and establishment of other neighborhood and civic associations, racial and socioeconomic discrimination, protection of historic sites(Roland Water Tower), City Council representatives(the early work of Mary Pate Clarke and other current initiative). Again, all of this work wasn’t perfect. GHCC almost shutdown because of a lack of funding, Camp Barclay didn’t have the amenities that it promised including a “bus/fieldtrip scandal”, Hampden refusing to work with GHCC, Union Memorial Hospital and Bank of America pulling out sponsorships, restructuring of the COACH program, and so on. The article was made public too quickly to reflect 40 years of successes and failures which is my fault. If it could be turned back into a draft and completed, it would make more sense. Best, Jober1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jober1 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• I certainly realize how frustrating this must be for you. Please know that I am willing to offer any help and guidance you may need. I think continuing to work on the article from the subpage of your userspace will work out best for this article. Something to keep in mind is the need to establish notability for the organization. Wikipedia is not a webhost to duplicate information already published on the organization's website. Much of the information above does not support notability. For example, the COACH program. The COACH program itself has not established notability apart from Boston University. While GHCC certainly appears to hold this to a high standard, this does not support notability. You state that the organization has been an important part of the history of north central Baltimore. While this is admirable, "importance" is not synonymous with being "notable". An organization can also not establish notability, based on an association with a notable person, event, or organization. Criteria for nonprofit organizations stipulates that the scope of their activities is both 1. national or international in scale; and 2. information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, and reliable sources. Based on this criteria, GHCC has not met the threshold for notability. You can read more about notability for organizations here. Try to move away from "local importance" and focus instead on any national or international activities in which the organization has been involved. And make sure to support all statements that may be questioned or challenged with third-party, independent, and reliable sources. Hope this helps. Please don't be hesitant to contact me if you have any questions. (I don't bite. Honestly.) Best regards, Cind.amuse 01:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I caused enough of a stink to get it deleted so that myself or someone else can eventually create a GHCC page without requiring so much attention from editors and admin. Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jober1 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)