User talk:Anne Delong: Difference between revisions

**Editor Retention**
Editor of the Week
Editor Retention; Editor of the Week
	Anne is a bluegrass musician
	Anne Delong
	Editor of the Week; for the week beginning April 14, 2013
	Here since December 2012, Anne Delong has been one of Teahouse's most prolific guests, and has impressed everyone with her dedication to learn and maturity. With time, she has grown into the fine editor that she is today, and still frequents there with refreshing questions. Being a bluegrass musician herself, it remains her topic of choice, and she has been constantly involved in creating articles. She has also been involved in various projects and active mentoring all the while. Good Wikipedia editing is truly like harmonized singing. Anne Delong's "voice" melds with everyone she works with! In her own words, What goes around comes around!
Recognized for	Being a model "new editor" for Wikipedia
	Nomination page

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:30, 1 October 2013

This is Anne Delong's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28

December

Welcome

Hello, Anne Delong, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question.
Again, welcome! --CherryX (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Anne Delong! Thank you for your contributions. I am FoCuSandLeArN and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When editing pages

Hi Anne, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your good and constructive edits to the Yellow cassava article, every little bit helps to make Wikipedia better. However (you knew that was coming, didn't you!) when you edit articles it is very helpful to people reviewing the article history if you remember to fill in the Edit summary field underneath the edit window with a brief note on what you just did. For example, when you change Yellow cassava to Yellow cassava (which is the right thing to do), you could note in the summary, "Added wikilink". Now people scanning the history can see what you did and don't need to view the actual edit to find out. Keep up the good work, and if you need any help just give me a shout. Regards, David_FLXD (Talk) 17:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ontario Genealogical Society

Ontario Genealogical Society, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Toronto Light Opera Association

Toronto Light Opera Association, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjects you might be interested in

Hi Anne, we have something called WikiProjects in Wikipedia. They are groups of people that share similar interests and work together to improve Wikipedia on specific subjects. I think it would be great if you introduce yourself and join us at WT:OPERA and WT:ONTARIO. You may want to check WP:TORONTO as well. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen this helpful suggestion, and thought I'd add to it: you may also be interested in The Guild of Copy Editors. David_FLXD (Talk) 04:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at David FLXD's talk page.
Message added 04:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

David_FLXD (Talk) 04:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Light Opera Association

Hi Anne: I've made some changes to the article (plus see my comments when saving) to bring it more in line with the WikiProject Opera guidelines.

A few things to be aware of:

1. We use the international day-month-year format. I don't know if you are in Canada where they tend to use the intenational standard I think, though yours look more like y-m-d. So more work is needed.

2. Re: Wiki-linking: unless there is an article on someone notable, lots of red links look pretty bad, sop best not to include them - until, that is, you write the articles!!

3. Use "External links" rather than pop these things into odd "Notes" somewhere.

All the best, and welcome to Wikipedia! Viva-Verdi (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one that created the red links, per WP:REDLINK. =P —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: protocol for responding to messages on your talk pages

There's no rule about how to go about this process. Either way works and it is your choice as a user.

However, the best way to deal with this is by responding on your own talk page and then posting on the user's talk page to let him know that you replied to his message on your own talk page.

We have a template that helps with this process at {{talkback}}

Here's what you should do:

Reply to the user on your own talk page.
Create a new section on the user's talk page with the header Re: subject of conversation and the body:

{{talkback|User talk:Anne Delong}}
~~~~

This would leave the following on the user's talk page:

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at Anne Delong's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

your signature would be here automatically

Hope this helps.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, whenever you have any questions like this feel free to ask them at the WP:TEAHOUSE ! :D —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization of Toronto Light Opera Association

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at Talk:Toronto Light Opera Association.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anne, please go Special:Preferences and copy the following code into the Signature textbox that appears there:

&mdash;[[User:Anne Delong|]] ([[User talk:Anne Delong|talk]])

and then click Save at the bottom.

Now, whenever you leave a message on a page make sure you add four (4) tildes at the end, like this:

~~~~

For some reason our automated robots are not detecting your signature. This should fix it.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review recommendations on Toronto Light Opera Association

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at Talk:Toronto Light Opera Association.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presentations before the organization became the Toronto Light Opera Association

Hi: In response to your question, while I've done a lot of work on opera company articles, I've never come across the situation which you describe. However, I see no reason for not including those shows, especially as you have the source of the info to link to.

Under "Productions" you could have an introductory paragraph which lays out the pre-history and name the shows, or you could note it in the intro para.

Hope this helps.

PS: Why is there a complete duplication of shows produced, one in a paragraph form, the other a return to the list? Depending upon how much you intend to write about each production, you could flesh out the paragraphs, one for each, which would a lot more encylopedic than a list of titles. Viva-Verdi (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me that added the list of titles underneath. However, organized information is a lot easier to scan and read (and to insert references!) than paragraphs. I am slowly finding information about the productions; one of the newspapers involved has not been indexed or scanned. What I'd eventually like is to have a paragraph for each production with a year and title as a heading for each paragraph. That will be a compromise between the two formats. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Anne Delong, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! heather walls (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWomen's Collaborative

WikiWomen Unite!

Hi Anne Delong! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative.

As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by:

Liking the WikiWomen's Collaborative on Facebook and share your tips, projects, and connect with other WikiWomen
Join the conversation on our Twitter feed
Reading and writing for our blog channel

Feel free to drop by our website, make a profile and see how else you can participate!

Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested at WP:WER

Hi Anne,

Your name is going around in several Wikipedia:WikiProjects due to your extraordinary contributions to Wikipedia and the Toronto Light Opera Association. You fit the profile for the kind of editors that we are looking for in Wikipedia and the kind of editors we wish to retain.

As such, I'm asking for your input on your experience in joining Wikipedia at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Input_from_newly_registered_user:_User:Anne_Delong. Please join us in the discussion, we promise to not WP:BITE!

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar
		Hey Anne, I have yet to personally interact with you, but based on what I have been hearing, you are doing a fantastic job and are worthy of recognition. I would urge you to help us out by answering those few questions, but whether or not you do so, your contributions are greatly appreciated and I therefore award you the excellent newcomer barnstar! Keep up the great work, and thanks for all of your contributions to improving the sum of the world's knowledge. Go Phightins! 01:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: thanks to you and other projects you might be interested in

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at Ahnoneemoos's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it...

... a similar article you are trying to create!? You have told, you are bew to Wikipedia, welcome to Wikipedia, if you have any question, feel free to ask (click here) --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Titodutta: Although I did add a reference to that page about visual learning, I am not the one who submitted it. That would be Jason50668128. I think your message needs to go to him. You are right that the Visual Leaerning page already exists. —Anne Delong (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that's a custom message --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TB message? --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mandolin Society.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 08:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by StarryGrandma (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by NtheP (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by NtheP (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Tea

Wikipedians also recommend biscuits with tea.

ukexpat (talk) has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Congrats... You asked an awesome question in the Teahouse!

Hi! Writing a new article is a challenge, and adding pictures can make that twice as complicated. And yet, here you are, kicking off a great career (ok, hobby) as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks so much for seeking out help at the Teahouse and for sharing your appreciation with the Teahouse hosts. Not everyone acts so thoughtful in seeking and accepting help, but you did. Thanks for doing that!

	Great Question Badge
	Awarded to those who have asked a great question on the Teahouse Question Forum. There are no stupid questions, but some are excellent! Good questions are those that reflect serious curiosity about editing and help others learn. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

Ocaasi^{t | c} 04:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFC submission

Mandolin Society of Peterborough, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

--ukexpat (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Yunshui 雲‍水 05:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Anne Delong! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Garamond Lethe 03:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Yunshui 雲‍水 08:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by gwickwire^talk_edits 14:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Report on a National Bank

I recently made a request for this new article Report on a National Bank, and wrote the material. I blush, but I was confused by my sources, and this is actually an alternate name for the Second Report on Public Credit. The "Report on the National Bank" needs to be removed; it is a duplicate article. The editor who presided over the original request - "Bonkers" - has not responded to my talk messages.

Can you assist me on this matter? 36hourblock (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the material for the article is fine, and has been used to update the article that exists, Second Report on Public Credit. Not a problem. And my thanks for your kind help. Best, 36hourblock (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

I've seen your contributions and attempts to understand policy and process, and you seem to be coming along leaps and bounds. I see a lot of editors struggle at new pages or Articles for Creation, or give up after one article, so it's really good to see someone stick at it and really make those of us who guide new editors feel we're doing something worthwhile. Maybe we'll see you commenting on WP:ANI soon. Actually, scratch that - that's a terrible idea.... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Page_view_statistics_for_a_newly_created_page.
Message added 08:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito Dutta (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Charles (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Yunshui 雲‍水 08:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Go Phightins! 03:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Yunshui 雲‍水 07:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Central Canadian Bluegrass Awards, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Xyphoid (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hindik Productions

Thank you! I hope to learn to write without spelling mistakes. אורח פורח (talk) 07:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Morales article

Thanks for your comments! I contacted the guy who had written the obituary, hoping to get him to continue the edits. Instead, he's offered to write a draft with further information & references, and send it to me -- that's OK too, of course. As part of WikiProject Biophysics, we're esp trying to improve coverage of scientists from other countries in both en and their wikipedias (also more women, of course). Dcrjsr (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joe Bartnick, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages NHLPA and King of Clubs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WisCEL

Tag now removed. Thankyou for your efforts. Op47 (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations

I've seen you point out various copyright violations at the AfC help desk. Thanky you very much. But I wonder whether it wouldn't be easier if you just nominated the infringing pages for speedy deletion yourself. Of course you're welcome to go through the help desk and have someone else do the deed, but it's not required. Huon (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Huon: I am a fairly new editor. The first couple of times that I found copyright problems I asked about them at the Teahouse, and it's a good thing I did, because they gave me good advice, such as comparing dates in the page history to find out which text was the source and which was copied, and checking whether the whole block of text appeared at once. I have now started tagging pages from the new page feed, and will only bring them to the help desk if there's something I don't understand.

However, I've been warned that I shouldn't interfere with the Afc review process in any way that the user might blame me for the article not being accepted. Because of that I was hesitant to put a deletion tag on one of these articles; I figured the people at the help desk were the reviewers and might not notice the copyright problem. If marking Afc pages for deletion is acceptable, I will be glad to do it directly. It's not like I won't have other questions to ask at the help desk! —Anne Delong (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've shown good judgement in the past, and have several months of experience including multiple new articles to your credit - in my book that's by far enough to not consider you a "new editor" in this regard. Besides, it's not as if you directly delete the drafts - even if you were in error (and I haven't yet seen an erroneous report from you), there's still the admin who should check before deleting. At worst you might end up with angry users' comments on your talk page a la "Why did you tag my article for deletion?" and would have to point them towards WP:COPYVIO. Huon (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That remind me, I have another question that I've been meaning to ask someone. It seems like the Teahouse is really aimed at brand new editors. The hosts there are very helpful, but I wonder if they prefer that people ask their questions somewhere else once they aren't new any more. If so, where would that place be? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have an all-purpose help desk for editing questions. That might be what you're looking for, though the Teahouse hosts certainly won't complain if you continue to ask them, either. Huon (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by NtheP (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

ReviewRaja

Thank you for the feedback! I asked User:Kailesh29792 to de-fancruft it, because I know I couldn't do it properly.--Dravidianhero (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Logotyping

If you want a userbox with the computer brand, why not use a digital pic of yours? Size it small (40-50px), you should be fine. (AFAIK, pix of your own property aren't violations, even if a brand logo is visible. I've asked the question at the Teahouse page, tho...) Link to the brand in the descriptor. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pineridge Bluegrass Folklore Society, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bluegrass (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question answered at the Teahouse

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 18:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

European Biomass Conference and Exhibition article for creation

Thank you for your comment for European Biomass Conference and Exhibition. Could you kindly help me as an experienced wikipedia user to simplify and arrange the text with more neutrality? --Lucarellie (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse Birthday

Hi Anne! We are having some birthday celebrations as Teahouse turns 1 year-old next week. You're one of the most active and passionate editors I've seen come through the project. I was wondering if you might reflect a bit on your experience at the Teahouse and how it's shaped your growth as a new editor. I'd love to have your responses to any of these questions, possibly for a Wikimedia Foundation blog post which will run on the big day.

How did you find the Teahouse? What were your first impressions?

A: Another user posted an invitation on my talk page. I found it helpful right away, with friendly yet helpful advice.

What do you like best about the atmosphere at the Teahouse?

A: Everyone tries to put a positive face on the problems presented, even though the hosts must be tired of seeing the same problems go by time after time. I liked the straightforward way that the hosts let me know what was acceptable and what was not.

What experience, interaction, guest, or host stands out for you as a highlight?

A: I liked the straightforward way that the hosts let new editors know what was acceptable and what was not, without looking down on anyone for being ignorant. It's been a pretty positive experience.

What has the Teahouse enabled you to do that you might not have done without it?

A: As a librarian and computer programmer I am used to material that is logical and arranged according to a preset plan. Wikipedia is more like a village where the roads have grown in random directions because that's where the first people happened to walk. The Teahouse helped me get past that until I could see the underlying infrastructure and the people that are gradually article by article pulling it toward a cohesive whole.

What do you hope for the Teahouse as she continues to grow up?

A: I hope that the teahouse hosts keep up the good work, and attract more super-friendly people to help out. What goes around comes around! —Anne Delong (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your awesome contributions to the project, Anne. Really exciting to watch. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 20:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another Teahouse reply

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 20:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Go Phightins! 02:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Havard_Referencing.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

John Sadak

That's a nice user name. But thanks for the help and appreciation on John Sadak. Cheers! User talk:Ashbeckjonathan

Teahouse talkback

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Amadscientist (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Thank you for your work on the list of fiddlers

What it says in the heading. :) Just plain Bill (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, Bill. I sure learned a lot about fiddlers while doing that! Right now the page is overloaded with American fiddlers. We'll have to add some more European fiddlers as we come to them.—Anne Delong (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Teahouse Turns One!

It's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Please come by the Teahouse to celebrate with us, and enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!

	Teahouse First Birthday Badge
	Awarded to everyone who participated in the Wikipedia Teahouse during its first year! To celebrate the many hosts and guests we've met and the nearly 2000 questions asked and answered during this excellent first year, we're giving out this tasty cupcake badge. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

--Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 22:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats... You asked some awesome questions in the Teahouse!

For asking lots of questions, and being patient for answers :) Good work.

	Great Question Badge
	Awarded to those who have asked a great question on the Teahouse Question Forum. There are no stupid questions, but some are excellent! Good questions are those that reflect serious curiosity about editing and help others learn. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

— nerd fighter^(academy) 01:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by — nerd fighter^(academy) 01:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

March

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Sionk (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Podunk Bluegrass Festival, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tim O'Brien (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by NtheP (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 12:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Dixie Flyer (disambiguation)

Hi Anne, I have slightly rearranged the DAB page that you created so that the layout is more in line with MOS:DAB. I really have to compliment you on how quickly you have got to grips with how Wikipedia works, excellent stuff! If you ever need help, please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page.--ukexpat (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Ukexpat. The page looks good. My background as a librarian and computer programmer has undoubtedly helped, but the Teahouse hosts have probably saved me at least half of the time that I would otherwise have needed to find the right information. As is to be expected from something that "jest grew", Wikipedia seems to be a giant kludge. I find myself much more patient with its wild and woolly organization than I would be with a commercial product with the same design.

I do have a question about Wikipedia. I'll ask you instead of at the Teahouse since it's not something that beginners would need to know. I was following some of the discussion about the gender gap, and I found this page Wikipedia:Database reports/User preferences, and I have a couple of questions about it. First, is there a reason that the gender category has Male and Female, but no Undisclosed category? I have a feeling that more women then men would be undisclosed, just from fear of cyberbullying, so I was interested in what percentage of users actually selected a gender in the User preferences. Also on that page in the section with languages, I see en-gb and en-ca, but I couldn't spot which category the American editors would fall into. Do you know? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathise! The editing interface is clunky but the WikEd gadget helps. I would try enabling it in your Preferences-->Gadgets if you haven't done so. Twinkle and NavPopups are also invaluable in my experience. I know the techies are working on WYSIWYG interface, so if that works it will make things even better. As for Wikipedia:Database reports/User preferences, I am afraid I have no clue! I see that you asked on the talk page but it does not look very active. Maybe the folks at WP:VPT can shed some light on it?--ukexpat (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at Eastmain's talk page.
Message added 00:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Bearfoot

Anne, thank you for the feedback. I am not much into bluegrass, in fact I only like Bearfoot and The Duhks. However, I like Wikipedia, and try to help keep articles correct, expand them as necessary, and in a few cases, create articles for musical groups or albums where no article exists. I am glad that you have adopted bluegrass bands as one of your interests and are working on improving them. Mburrell (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the Teahouse:

You have a response to your query: Tagging for lack of notability, from: ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 10:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions.
Message added 12:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 12:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 13:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Teahouse follow-up

Regarding what you said in response to my last post, I know I saw a discussion of allowing users to use the curation toolbar on any page but I cannot for the life of me figure out where that was. Oh well. If I stumble across it again I'll let you know.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bluegrass mandolin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chunking

List of bluegrass musicians (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kenny Baker

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to assist in the Texan Collaboration of the Year for 2013

The current Texan Collaboration of the Year is Lizzie Velásquez.

Every year, a different Texas-related topic, stub or non-existent article is picked. Please read the nomination text and improve the article any way you can.

Tramadul (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, impressive!

I can't believe how many edits you've made in under 4 months! I strive to be more like you. :) Jami430 (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sometimes I have trouble sleeping....and I'm not allowed to practise my violin in the middle of the night. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Phone_numbers.
Message added 12:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 12:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I just wanted to leave a quick word of thanks for the reviews you did of Sammy Barr and Sammy Gilmore, and the kind words you left on my talkpage. It is lovely wikipedians like yourself that make all this worthwhile! All the best --_nonsense ferret 16:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English Phonotypic Alphabet

Thank you for your contribution, I'm afraid I don't know more about the English Phonotypic Alphabet I hope someone can help.--Laurentleap (talk) 10:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Good feedback. I will make the improvements.

HokiePE (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Teahouse question has been answered

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Espresso Addict (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Tito Dutta (contact) 22:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Message added Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 11:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Historic Norweigian Grade

All of the roadsigns refer to it as the Historic Norweigian Grade--should I get some pictures of them? Ajenee (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Amadscientist (talk) 06:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1975 in Canadian television, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Fifth Estate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Francis McNulty

Ms. Anne Delong,

Thank you. I shall look at your tags on Thomas Francis McNulty and get back to you if needed. It is unfortunate, but, I myself don't know of any other information on him except the obscure Time Magazine obit already cited, perhaps, another reader, seeing your tags, might be able to help. Albiet (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Albiet[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Tito Dutta (contact) 04:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Ushau97 ^talk 18:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

A pie for you!

Thanks for pointing out those copyright violations! Once again the sound judgment I've come to expect from you. Huon (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Tito Dutta (contact) 02:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Tito Dutta (contact) 03:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

A well deserved barn star!

		The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar A new editor on the right path
		Your questions at the Teahouse show you have the best intentions and your work seems to prove that!. Amadscientist (talk) 06:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by NtheP (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Re: Felix Kjellberg

Hello, that would be absolutely fantastic! I really appreciate the offer. :-)

Many thanks! Weir NI (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at the AfC help desk

Hello Anne Delong, I've replied to your query at the AfC help desk. I must apologize for my comment regarding the copyright violation - notifying others is helpful, but there's simply no need to ask others to tag what you've identified as a copyright violation - tagging it yourself would probably be easier for everybody, including yourself. So please don't take my comment the wrong way, and keep up the good work! Yours, Huon (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: User:Mohammad sameer hussain/sandbox

Hello Anne Delong. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Mohammad sameer hussain/sandbox, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not an article, A3 doesn't apply. Thank you. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what's the best way to get rid of this article for creation, which has only a title, and the title is on the blacklist, so I can't move it to the article name? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd manually decline it as empty (done by Amory) and then ignore it. Technically you could have the page deleted via Miscellany for deletion, but I don't think that's worth the effort. Huon (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Also, what blacklist? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I tried to move the page in to the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation section, the move page said that it could not move it because the page name was blacklisted. I presume that there had been trouble with someone in the past trying to repeatedly recreate an article with that name, but this is only my first day reviewing so I had never seen that message before. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. It didn't say it was blacklisted, it said you couldn't do it. That's because the user had the draft in his sandbox, and titled "sandbox". When you tried to move it to project talk space, you couldn't because the default would have been Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox. That already exists, and you can't move a page to the same title as another page unless someone deletes the target first. What I did was simply change the name inside the "move" box. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not the situation. I am familiar with the sandbox thing; I've moved sandbox pages lots of times, and this time the message was different. It definitely had the word "blacklist" in it. It was even a different colour. That's why I backed off and tried to get rid of the page without moving it. I see that you didn't have any trouble, and I can't explain it. Maybe I mistyped the title. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, beats me then! If you see that again drop me a line, I'd be curious for sure. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it happened again, and this time I copied the text of the message. Here is is: "User:Fcojdelucas/MARTIN MAZZA" cannot be moved to "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MARTIN MAZZA", because the title "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MARTIN MAZZA" is on the title blacklist. If you feel that this move is valid, please consider requesting the move first. -- I have left it alone in case you wanted to try it. I just clicked on the little move link in the big yellow box. One thing I notice is that in both cases the title was all capital letters. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. An edit summary got me interested and after talk page stalking I wanted to investigate the error, but instead of the error replicating, it just moved without any warning or blacklist message. Maybe a post to Village pump technical is warranted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, duh. All caps. Anything with 9+ is disallowed. Sorry, should've seen that. Here's the regex FYI if that's your sort of thing: .*\p{Lu}(\P{L}*\p{Lu}){9}.* ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also see MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Re: Felix Kjellberg

Hello! Thanks for all you've done, and my apologies I didn't reply sooner. I shall keep my eye out for more reliable sources in the future! :-)

Many thanks, Weir NI (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Ushau97 ^talk 05:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Yunshui 雲‍水 13:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Errr...

Can't be as famous as I thought I was... I'm glad to know you don't know about DustCoveredSoul, as that means there are at least two of us. I vaguely remember seeing it at CSD, but don't think I did anything to it, and certainly haven't asked about it. I've just tried to find it in deleted articles, but may not have the spelling right. (I am an admin, you see, or was last time I looked...) Just Googled - punk band. I might have deleted it. There were a couple of no-hopers and one or two more. (Had one the other day that had actually written a song but were still looking for a bassist... I presume the song had a bass line so they couldn't go any further.) I've a feeling you messaged the wrong person, but if you find the right spelling or tell me who posted it, I'll let you know what was in it. 8-) Peridon (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear, I'm sorry. I received an e-mail which I misunderstood. On reading it more carefully, I realize that it was from a user DustCoveredSoul, who was looking for an article called Lay Renewal Ministries, which you apparently deleted, to add an external link (I'm sure the article needed another one...). I have been reviewing articles in the Afc since yesterday, so maybe I had something to do with it; I don't remember. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Not a punk band. That one's a Christian thing which either didn't show any notability or was a copyvio, I think. Can't find it - yes I can. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lay Renewal Ministries. Copyvio of http://layrenewal.wordpress.com/about/ and didn't look particularly notable or well referenced in RS anyway. Ah well. We both now know that DustCoveredSoul is also a punk band, but nothing to do with this query... I did do the deed. You had tagged it. They just flow by, don't they? Some days, anyway. Other days they fight... Peridon (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

West Ranch Airport

Hi, thanks for the comment. I will be building on that page soon. I have been doing research into the West family and intend to put more into that ranch (they owned many ranches) and the airport soon. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cersevcu (talk • contribs) 14:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for your AfC reviewing efforts! You seem to get all the truly bizarre cases... Huon (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been picking off all of the articles that haven't been moved to Articles for creation and moving them, because I notice that the sandboxes and user spaces are being picked up by one of the mirror wikis, and some of them really shouldn't be out there. When I can't do the move it's usually because there's a duplicate. It also means I'm looking at mainly brand new editors. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Anne, for moving my article, Stan_Modeling_Language to Articles for Creation. Jim.Callahan,Orlando (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anne Delong. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Correspondance with Stan Development Team.
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Jim.Callahan,Orlando (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

I was making a Wiki page for my Social Media Class, and I am just wondering why my page was declined? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgriffth (talk • contribs) 20:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)It was declined because it didn't cite reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Furthermore, it is not written in an encyclopedic tone - it even mentions "Our meetings" and "our website". On top of that, virtually all of the draft's content was copied verbatim from the organization's website - a {{WP:COPYVIO|copyright violation]]. I've thus tagged the draft for speedy deletion. Huon (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfC help desk

While you are of course welcome to use the AfC help desk (don't worry about being a "pest"; we encourage asking when in doubt!), there's also a dedicated talk page for reviewers and project members at WT:WikiProject Articles for creation. It's a little more behind-the-scenes and may be better suited to questions about reviewing, as opposed to questions by prospective authors. Once again, I really appreciate your work; I'm too lazy to do much reviewing myself... Huon (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

??? Well, so far my experience with Wikipedia is wandering around randomly until I bump into someone like you who tells me something useful. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at WT:AFC.
Message added 04:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Arctic Kangaroo 04:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at WT:AFC.
Message added 05:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Arctic Kangaroo 05:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at WT:AFC.
Message added 08:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Arctic Kangaroo 08:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfC March drive

I've noticed that you forgot to add your name to the March drive page. Since you were not a member of the project when the drive started, you probably missed the announcement, but you already helped a lot so I I think you should add your name.

You can create your sub-page from here. Just add the line "== Checked reviews ==" to the sub-page to create it.
You can add your name to the Totals section from here. The line should be
"====[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/March 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive/Anne_Delong|Anne Delong]] ===="
You can add your name to the AfC Buddy participants list from here so that your list of reviews are automatically generated when that tool runs. The line should be
"* [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/March_2013_Backlog_Elimination_Drive/Anne_Delong Anne Delong]"

Nimuaq (talk) 10:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Could you please check and see if I have done it properly? Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks ok, you didn't need to add your reviews though, since you added your name to the AFCBuddy participants list, AFCBuddy will generate the lists on your behalf when its author runs that tool. Nimuaq (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems that the drive is over now, but I am not sure how to have my edits counted. Do I add the numbers manually to the Totals section? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A semi-automated tool will count it for you, and update that page, you don't need to add them yourself. Nimuaq (talk) 04:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paniyiri Greek Festival, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Musgrave Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April

Thank You

Thank you, for you help with the name placement it was difficult thank you sooo much! Hulk3200 (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Mike Yokohama: A Forest with No Name

This article is below 1,500 characters minimum. It's already raised in the nomination page. --George Ho (talk) 07:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you are telling the wrong person? I'm pretty sure that I didn't nominate this film for anything. I do remember leaving a message at the film project asking of someone could review it because it had been waiting for 28 days in the Afc queue, but it's not my article. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I did see logs of your contributions to this article. I expected too much. --George Ho (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the references! 123.225.52.180 (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome—Anne Delong (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great input!

Thank you, Anne, with help for my Ivan Saric article. The problem I'm running into is getting information about him. It's just not out there. I tried soliciting Ivan directly for information through his facebook page, but I was ignored. If this guy doesn't know how to use the crowd, I was mistaken in considering him a notable (or potential notable). That being the case, I suggest this article for deletion. But all in all, this has been a great introduction to Wikipedia. The format is still a bit foreign to me, but in due time. Thanks again, Anne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atherahmedwashere (talk • contribs) 01:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope you aren't too disappointed. The page doesn't have to be deleted, though. Wikipedia has pages sitting around for years in the Articles for Creation section, and sometimes the subject of the article will do something amazing and get in the news a few months later and the article will be finished up. It's just text; hardly takes any space at all. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your encouragement and support, Anne. It means a lot to me. -Ather — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atherahmedwashere (talk • contribs) 04:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help

I edited the article (Glenda H. Eoyang), and hope it'll be published. Taljudy (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Taljudy:

I am afraid that the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Glenda H. Eoyang is far from ready for the encyclopedia.

First, there are two copies of everything, and I don't know which to look at. Please remove the extra material.

Second, there are promotional external links in the body of the article. These should be removed and if important placed in an "External links" section at the bottom of the article, after the references.

Third, your list of publications needs to be "bulleted" for appearance's sake. I've done the first few for you. Leaving a blank line between paragraphs will also make this article more readable.

Next, this article reads more like a resume. An encyclopedia article is a summary, not an enumeration, of a notable person's career. I found an example, Angelika Amon, which is about right. Notice that there are no external links in the article, because Wikipedia is not intended to promote any business or organization. In the section about her work, the important areas of research are mentioned, and each is backed up with a citation. If you look at the references indicated by the citations, a few of them are to her own papers, just enough to illustrate the type of work she does, and the rest are reliable outside sources, verifying the facts in the article.

Your reference section is a link to a list of citations. This is not an acceptable substitute for proper references. Even if a reader of your article had the time or interest to go through this list, many articles cite others' work in trivial ways such as "See also", or as general references. You have probably read many of these pagers, so find a few that have significant coverage of particular pieces of information in the article, and make citations to them at the appropriate spots in the article. If you would like to see how Angelika Amon's citations were created, you can click on the edit button of her page and take a look.

I hope you find this helpful. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	In appreciation of the work you do helping to get rid of copyvio AFCs. Thanks. INeverCry 21:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguishing between professional and unprofessional reviews.

I am currently working on making my article ready for submission. I had it reviewed to find out what I would need in order to make this page worthy of wikipedia. You reviewed it and mentioned that I would need to find and cite outside sources about the game that were not made for or by the game producers, and I would just like some help with looking for these sources. How would I distinguish between a prosessional review and an unprofessional one? I think this would help me out a lot in finding the sources to cite. Thanks again for your time, snd I look forward to your input. Cartographer23554 (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cartographer23554. You have asked a very good question. There are reviews everywhere, these days, but many of them are on blogs, and are made by random people who happen to attend a performance or read a book. A problem with a site like that is that people who have a vested interest in a review can go in and review their own product and no one would know.

A professional reviewer is one who works for a newspaper, a magazine, or even a web site that specializes in reviews. These reviewers are independent and know their subject. There are also people who aren't paid, but whose reviews are trusted because they are acknowledged experts and known to be unbiased; however, it's hard to know which ones these are.

Another kind of review to avoid is one on a site that is also selling the item being reviewed, since these are usually self-serving, and almost invariably positive.

I am not that knowledgeable about video game reviews (my favourite game is Tetris and the last game that really captured my attention was made by Infocom). However, I can give you an example of gamespot.com. They have both professional and amateur reviews, but you can tell the difference because the amateur ones are in their blog section and the professional ones are marked "editor" like this one: Need for Speed. You can tell that the site is properly managed.

I hope this helps. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My article submission

Dear Anne, My article was declined by you. I am very new to wikipedia and really need some help as this is my first article. Please help me in getting appropriate inputs. I would really appreciate your help. I do not even know if this is the place to write you a message. If this is, and if you see this message please respond and give me a solution.

Thanks and Regards, Kishore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikishore1985 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I was trying to submit a new article about my friends band (The Royal Blasphemy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Royal_Blasphemy). You denied cuz you said that I need to "find some independent news articles or reviews (not blogs) about this group to verify both notability and the information in this article." All the information there was give to me by the band itself. I added some links to there facebook, official webpage, isn't that enough? Or do you want me to send you an e-mail write from the band saying that that information it's true?

Thanks for your help, Mr Omega — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrOmega13 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Omega13:

I'm sorry; I guess my note wasn't clear. What Wikipedia means by notability is that the band has to have been written about by professional writers such as journalists, authors, reviewers, etc. I didn't ask for references because I thought you were making it up (although this came in the other day...Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Saint Ampersand).

An encyclopedia is a summary and organizer of already published material. If nobody is writing about this band except the members themselves and their friends, then the band shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. If I were to close my eyes and pass it through, it wouldn't do any good, because there are thousands of other editors out there who, as soon as they see a page with no outside sources, will just delete it. As long as the article is inside the Articles for Creation section, it will not be deleted, and you can add to it and resubmit later if the band gets some press.

After getting your message I looked around on the web for a while, but all I could see about this band were items on sites where you post your own material, like Youtube, Facebook and setlist. There are plenty of such places intended to promote bands, but that's not Wikipedia's purpose.

I see that the band is from Portugal. Perhaps you can find some more local material to use as sources. Have they played at festivals or events? If so, did the local newspaper write about them? That's all I can think of. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your painstaking contributions to Wikipedia, maintaining a high level of diligence for every single edit, such as with AfC. (and also for your kind words!) FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ronnie_Mutimusekwa

Dear Miss Delong,

My article was rejected for being blank. I have re-entered the disappeared text and would like to ask you to re-review it.

Thank you. Saflieni Saflieni (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page

Editor Anne Delong Hello…

Kindly I receive a letter from you on my talk page a bout my Article for creation Emad Kayyam.

Actually I am trying to start an article named: ((Emad Kayyam Work)) on my sand box which discuss images and media published by Emad Kayyam in the Wikimedia Commons under the category "Emad Kayyam Work".

Kindly I hope you notice that all images & media under the category Emad Kayyam work in wikimedia commons is dual licensed by "CC by Sa 3" un ported & the GFDL and are created, designed and produced by me Emad Kayyam as the corresponding author.

I hope if you let me know if I can start this article on my sand box, or if you please suggest where should I start this article and what is your advice.

Thank you mush Emad Kayyam

--Dr. EMAD KAYYAM 15:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EMAD KAYYAM (talk • contribs)

Dear EMAD KAYYAM: Yes, your sandbox is a good place to write the article. Don't worry, your images in Wikimedia should still be there if they are properly licensed. Even in the sandbox, though, you should not add copyright text from other documents. Wikipedia tries hard not to have any such material anywhere. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your question at Teahouse

I've added another suggestion to your question on where to post reviewing questions at the Teahouse. Keep up the good work! Espresso Addict (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Pratyya ^(Hello!) 09:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Social media sites and notability

I would think that is the right forum... I would change your opening line to your proposal and if the people the frequent there think it belongs elsewhere, I'm sure they will tell you. Technical 13 (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've started the discussion. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link colours

Following your question at the Teahouse, I thought you might be interested to know about the Linkclassifier script. It gives me a headache, but if you feel that you'd like your version of Wikipedia to look like a rainbow threw up on it, you may wish to give it a whirl! Yunshui 雲‍水 13:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Yunshui, it looks interesting, and maybe I'll try it sometime, but for now I just wanted to be able to tell which submissions I had already reviewed. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your review of BlogUpp article

Dear Anne, thank you for your consideration of my submitted article on BlogUpp and your suggested WHOIS resource. You added a great reference, appreciate it as well.

I've just included an infobox section, based on Wikipedia website template. The new information collected is based on WHOIS record suggested by you, as well as service's FAQ, which also mentions service creators. Please let me know if there's anything else you feel is missing and I'll do my best. —Ibjennyjenny (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Anne for your kind support. I'm glad my submission has been accepted. Best regards, —Ibjennyjenny (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giga Pets

Thanks so much for your help on my Giga Pets article. I will follow your advice and learn more tips at Teahouse! Rebfield (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peterborough Canoe Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Duck decoy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for jumping right in with content creation. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:The Interior submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Anne Delong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has only been here since early December 2012, but has already completed over 3,000 edits. She is active on several Wikiprojects, checking and assessing new articles. Despite only recently graduating from the "help" stage herself, she is already passing along what she has learned to newbs through the Teahouse (see her talk page for evidence). She has started several new articles (HMCS Nene (K270), List of bluegrass bands, Dixie Flyers) and is keen on learning new wiki skills. I think she should be recognized as an exceptional addition to the editing corps. Thanks for your consideration, The Interior (Talk)

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Go Phightins! 17:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all you do. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from me too; well-deserved! Huon (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I take the afternoon off to go to a jam session, and look what happens! Thanks, everyone. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS - none of the skinny young musicians in that photo look anything like me! —Anne Delong (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was already starting to wonder which one was you! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anne. We can change the photo.

Done....Do you have one that you Like? Afterall, it will forever be enshrined in the WER Hall of Fame. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats to you Anne, and of course, thank you for all the hard work you did to earn the recognition. You make a difference here, and we are a richer place because of your efforts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations and Thank you for being such a brilliant editor!!! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Hello, Anne Delong. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ocaasi^{t | c} 19:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article about Prof. Alain de Weck

Dear Mrs. Anne Delong:

Many thanks for your initial response regarding the article for "Alain de Weck". I have in the meantime completed an extensive article on this eminent scientist (who happens to be my father) in the English Wikipedia. There are extensive references including Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) to scientific articles that are relevant. I believe the article is ready to publish on Wikipedia. I saved it but am unsure if it is in your queue again to be reviewed. I hope it could be published in the next couple of days since my father passed away recently and there is a large community looking for an article on him.

If the English article is approved it is then my intention to create a n equivalent German and French version (a German article already exists but it is very short).

Many thanks for your help and best wishes. (Sorry I am new to Wikipedia and probably making many faux pas)

Prof. Olivier de Weck deweck@mit.edu Deweck (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at that!

Look at the train of thought I've just had: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Corps Palatia Munich --> File --> Barnstar.

Coincidence? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a passing resemblance, but the barnstar design was uploaded years before the article, and the descriptions are in different languages, so unless you are seeing something that I am missing, it's a coincidence. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon whoever created the barnstar was aware of the Corps Palatia. Anyway, it was just a curiosity. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Yunshui 雲‍水 09:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Wikipedia Article for Surbhi Jyoti

Hi Anne,

I am from India and know Surbhi Jyoti(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Surbhi_Jyoti) as an Television and Punjabi(Language) Movies Actor. I regularly watch Qubool Hai(Hindi Television Drama/Serial) in which Surbhi Jyoti is playing role of a girl named "Zoya Farooqui". She is becoming much popular day by day. Here by I request you to review this article again and guide me to make Surbhi Jyoti's article more authenticate.

Thanks, - Nizam Kazi Co-Founder, ArtLog DiGi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nizamkazi (talk • contribs) 10:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for advice about googling Hattie Nestel

Thank you very much for your advice about sourcing an article on Hattie Nestel. I appreciate it very much. And I apologize for using your personal email.

Marcia Gagliardi — Preceding unsigned comment added by HaleyAthol (talk • contribs) 17:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear HaleyAthol: There is no need to apologize about the e-mail. There are times when it might be appropriate to e-mail. However, when talking about Wikipedia, it's better to use the talk pages because the articles are a collaboration between many editors, so everyone can see what has already been discussed and don't keep making the same comments over again. Good luck with your article. By the way, there's a special forum for new editors called The Teahouse. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for uninvolved 3rd party to comment.

Hello. I am requesting your opinions at Talk:Thomas Savage (died 1611)#Move and add to Thomas Savage as a third party to a discussion which I feel is nearing an impasse. I feel confident that if you chose to participate, your comments ideas and suggestions will be neutral and non-biased in favor or against either of the currently involved participants. If you do not wish to participate, I understand and respect your wishes. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An invitation for you

An invitation for you!


	Hello, Anne Delong. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. Happy editing! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crawford Seven Step Model for Operational Excellence.jpg

Hi Anne, I am new to Wikipedia and don't really know my away around the system.

You have asked if I have permission for the above jpg.

I am the creator and owner of the diagram which is used in my whitepaper on Acedemia.

The methods to proof ownership seems a little perplexing, can you accept this message as permission?

Thank you for your help.

John Crawford — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikichange12 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Vote for the Girls

I do appreciate the review of my article for creation for Vote for the Girls. However, I do believe that there needs to be at least one other source (besides the Vote for the Girls web site) in order for what I believe is a resubmission for the Vote for the Girls article on Wikipeidia.

Other than that, I do respect the decision for the decline as I will try to get more sources and will be more than happy to get free images. Aeverine Frathleen Nieves (talk) 09:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An Barnstar for You!

	The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar
	Congratulations, Anne Delong! You're receiving the Tireless Contributor Barnstar because you reviewed 116 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! Mdann52 (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crawford Alchemy Blueprint for Operational Excellence

Good morning Anne,

Please would you review my submission again as I have added an extra link that should satisfy your reason for rejection. I have a book and whitepaper published on the subject and is not a whim title I am adding to Wikipedia.

Thank you.

John Crawford — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikichange12 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear John:

I have looked at your article, but I still don't see any citations to independent sources (not written by you or for you). Has your book received any reviews by journalists or other writers about change? Has it been discussed in the press, other than by its publisher? Have other papers been written that discuss it? I have not declined the submission again to give you more time to add these independent sources, but another editor may see the submission and decline it at any time. If the book and paper are really new, it may just be too soon because no one else has written about them yet. If that's the case, just leave the article where it is for a while, add the sources at a later date, and submit the article then. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

is this a duplicate

You seem to have marked Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Evolutionary Theory of Mate Selection as duplicate of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Evolutionary Theory of Mate Selection. This does not seem to make sense-- is this what you meant to indicate, or is it a duplicate or copyvio from somewhere else? DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for find this. I cut and pasted the URL from the web site, but it seems my text copy didn't work and my paste buffer instead added the previous URL that I had copied. The copyright text box is so small that I didn't notice the difference. I fixed it. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Sutherland, leading restaurateur and retailer of the 1960s

You kindly asked who owned the copyright of the Obituary which appeared in the Daily Telegraph on 28/10/1998. The answer is that I wrote an Obituary piece for them on commission. The article I submitted to Wikipedia is my own original longer version which was edited back by the Telegraph. The fact that the Obit was commissioned and appeared would I hope justify Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I note that Robin Sutherland's original partner Michael Chow has his own entry which mentions much of the story from a different perspective. Many other references in the piece are also published in my book about the London restaurants of the 1960s, The Spaghetti Tree, Mario and Franco and the Trattoria Revolution, Primavera Books, London, 2009. Thank you again for your advice and assistance! Alasdairss (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Alasdair Scott SutherlandAlasdairss (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alasdairss: It wasn't me that asked about the copyright issue. It must have been Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk, the one who placed the copyright notice. Wikipedia is pretty strict about making sure that all of its text is specially written for the encyclopedia, and is not just copies of material published elsewhere. I declined your article for another reason: To be the subject of a Wikipedia article, a person or their work has to have been written about extensively in the media or in books by those not connected to them (in this case restaurant critics, business and local news, etc.) A book written by a relative could be used as a reference for facts, as long as its not the only source, but not to establish notability; only information published by independent authors and journalists count in that case.

About the copyright issue: I don't know about the Daily Telegraph, but most newspapers assume copyright of everything they publish, no matter who wrote it. The most straightforward thing to do would be to rewrite the text so that none of the sentences are the same as in the obituary or in any of your own published works. Then you will not need to worry about that issue at all. Before going to that trouble, though, make sure that you have found those independent sources mentioned above, or the article will be declined.

I hope this helps. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kekoo Gandhy

Hi Anne Delong Thank you for looking over the page I had created for Kekoo Gandhy. You have ruled out the single reference that I had for this article so far, but I am unclear as to the precise reason, other than the reference should not be by the person. Does this rule out all published interview articles as references, then? What about interview-based articles about him? At least one US academic has produced an item on his life and work in such fashion. Of course, now that Kekoo Gandhy has died, there have been obituaries in several national Indian newspapers. But are any of these acceptable as references? Some of the information, I fear, about his early life is going to be unverifiable through references that are other than the interviews he gave while alive. Should I presume, then, that for Wikipedia purposes those elements of his life will have be absent? Thanks for your input. Kind regards Jim Moody — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmo (talk • contribs) 12:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jim:

You have asked a very good question about published interviews. I believe that Wikipedia editors and reviewers take each case individually in this situation. For example, if a person is interviewed by a professional journalist, and the interviewer writes introductory information, we assume that he or she would have checked the facts before writing it. Also, if the person being interviewed gives non-controversial information, such as "My restaurant is in London, England", the interview can be used to back up that fact. Surely the interviewer would have spoken up it this obvious fact were not true. However, if in the same interview the person says "Everyone loves my spaghetti sauce.", that wouldn't be accepted. An independent food critic would need to write about that. In general, interviews are weak sources because most of the text is the subject's own words, and people don't always see themselves as others see them. The weaker the source, the more are needed to corroborate facts. However, if there are a number of different interviews published in reliable sources, they should be included as references, because the fact of being interviewed means that the subject had come to the attention of the press. Interviews which are not published shouldn't be used at all.

In reference to your article, I see that some of the events happened long ago. There are surely news reports about some of these happenings, but they may be hard to find because there was no Internet then. I faced the same problem when creating this page: Toronto Light Opera Association. I couldn't use my mother's first hand information as a source; I had to travel to a city library and look up old microfilm newspaper records.

By the way, I have removed the Op Cit references in the article and changed them to refer to the actual source. Op cit doesn't work well in Wikipedia, because people will come along and add a citation to a new source in between, and then the op cit points to the wrong reference.

I hope this helps. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Mosport

Hi Anne, I agree with your post for me regarding the location of Mosport not being in Bowmanville. I actually have family that live just south of the track near Orono. For some reason the track to this day still has their address listed on their website as 3233 Concession Road 10, Bowmanville, and all major racing series including NASCAR and the American Le Mans Series have it listed as Bowmanville including on their international television broadcasts. I'm not sure why, but I believe they put the location of all tracks as being the nearest large population centre. TorontoGuy79

TorontoGuy79 (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Polygog/Quantum Keyhole

Polygog (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Anne Delong. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Quantum Keyhole

Hello Anne,

I am the author and copyright holder of the article you cite as copyright violation (http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.com/against-mainstream/4620-quantum-keyhole.html).

Please, restore my article my unpublished article. Please advise as to any other issue(s) that my inhibit publishing User:Polygog/Quantum Keyhole.

Highest Regard,

Kenneth Larimer

Just to clarify, the Quantum Keyhole article was post at wikipedia on 26 July 2010, while the http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.com/against-mainstream/4620-quantum-keyhole.html version was posted in November 2010 and cites the wikipedia source.

Dear Kenneth:

I am afraid that because the article was newly submitted I assumed wrongly that it was newer than the web site. I can't undo the delete directly, but I will contact an administrator to do so. However, the article will still be declined (but not deleted) unless you can show with several independent sources that Quantum Keyhole has been written about by journalists and other authors. It's part of Wikipedia policy that the encyclopedia isn't to be used to promote new terms and ideas. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The draft never was deleted. I've reverted the blanking and left a comment at the draft. Huon (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Draft page of Eurolib, references added

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Eurolib

Dear Miss Delong,

My article was rejected as unreferenced. We have entered appropriate references alongwith the link to Eurolib website and to our members.

Thank you in advance to consider it. Liutprando Liutprando (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

requested modifications to draft of Eurolib page done

Draft page of Eurolib, references fixed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Eurolib

Dear Miss Delong,

I have fixed the references as requested.

Thank you once again Best Regards Liutprando

Liutprando (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Liutprando:

I see that you have added a couple of good references. However, now that I see your web site, I realize that instead or writing about EuroLib you have copied text from the web site. Wikipedia cannot accept text which is published elsewhere for copyright reasons. Each author must submit his or her own written work, and cannot submit as the representative of an organization. I have blanked out the parts that need to be rewritten.

When you have finished, look at the pink box at the top of the page and you will see a place to click to resubmit the article for review.

Also, please have patience and remember that Wikipedia is a world wide organization of volunteers. Reviewers are not always at their keyboards, and it may take some time before you receive a reply when you post a message. Your first post came in the middle of the night for me here in Canada. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Justice Action page

Dear Anne,

Thank you for your time reviewing the state of my article.

You state "Most of the citations you had were created by the group's own people," - In reference to articles I posted in which Justice Action representatives are used as media sources.

I'm not sure I completely understand this.

Whilst the majority of those sources involve Justice Action speaking about its own position on an issue - is not the repeated use of the organisation as a source of information/commentary, in and of itself - not a substantiation of its noteworthy status?

What type of article would be better? One in which Justice Action does not speak or give a position at all?

Can you please clarify? Can I use the articles I have listed? I'm confused as to what the threshold is here? Many of the articles establish the group as an advocacy service, and the unstated implication is that their opinion is noteworthy enough to be contribute to journalistic analysis or discussion of issues at hand.

What other forms of media would be available to a community group like Justice Action other than this sort of coverage?

Thanks a lot for your time and assistance.

answer on your comments on article draft David Prangishvili

Dear Anne Delong The information presented in the article is now confirmed by the references to the works of David Prangishvili. In all of these publications, in which the discovery of new virus families and their description are reported, David Prangishvili is a corresponding author. This means that he planned and directed the reported studies and that the work has been done in his research group. Moreover, there are articles in Wikipedia on the new virus families described by David Prangishvili and links to them are provided. In the revised article I also mention that David Prangishvili is the author of more than 130 publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals and books. Moreover, the link is provided to the list of foreign members of the Georgian National Academy of Sciences which includes David Prangishvili.

Best regards user anastrokovaAnastrokova (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anastrokova:

Your article about David Prangishvili is looking pretty good, but it still needs some INDEPENDENT references, ones in which Mr. Prangishvili was not involved in the writing. The publications you put in are good content for the article, and can be used to confirm that fact that he wrote papers, but not for other information in the article. I found one for you in the Encyclopedia of Microbiology, and started a reference section. You can see how the ref tags create the citation numbers automatically.

In the article you say that he received a prize; was there a report in a newspaper or organization journal about the prize? If so, that would make a good reference. He seems to be very well known in this field, so maybe some other scientists have written about his work or he has been featured in a university magazine article. Good luck with this. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see a quality new editor recognized

Hi, Anne! I haven't been around much and am not able to be around enough to do much that is meaningful, but I did want to drop by and tell you that I am very happy to see you have been named editor of the week! It is a deserved award for you. You hit the ground running here and have not really ever stopped striving to make quality contributions to Wikipedia, and for that I say....Thanks and BRAVO!!!!!! Gtwfan52 (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I have supplied some documentation for my new entry Sip 'n Stroll. I've located websites that are promoting such events. What other type of documentation do you recommend to support the activation of this entry? Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yhtak2013 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Yhtak2013: The URLs that you added are all promotional items created by the organizers of the Sip 'n' Strolls. What's needed for confirmation are news reports, magazine articles, reviews, etc., written after the events to show that these events were noted by journalists and other professional writers, and/or published articles written about the organizations by these same independent writers. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Film Festivals

Hello Anne, I saw you are in charge of reviewing the AfC process of my student Hibba Itani's article 'Arab Film Festivals in the Middle East'. Since the article deals with Arab Film Festivals abroad too, I suggest to simply call the article 'Arab Film Festivals'. If you need any more info please contact me. Thank you, Robert Kluijver (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have re-submitted article for review

Have resubmitted my article on the "City of Healing" project in Jordan. I added 3 references which I hope will be sufficient. Thank you for your time and expertise in reviewing my article, it is appreciated. voxclamantis 13:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voxclamintis (talk • contribs)

Dear Voxclamintis: Unfortunately, one of the references that you have added to South Asian Building magazine is actually the source of most of the text in this article, which is a copyright violation, and the article will be deleted. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept text that has been copied from published sources. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Faculty of Law, Oxford, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Regius Professor of Civil Law and Sir Frederick Pollock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Thank you for your work, and (2) a "pirate" or "clone" WP website publishing pending submissions?

Hi Anne. (1)I want to thank you for your work in cleaning up the ref's and for having added two new references. I really appreciate that. (2) Are you aware that there seems to be a sort of "pirate" or "clone" website apparently directed toward a Japanese language audience that is publishing my article? You can see it here: http://wpedia.goo.ne.jp/enwiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sue_draheim That website apparently also gives access to all other pending articles as well: http://wpedia.goo.ne.jp/enwiki/Category:Pending_AfC_submissions. Thanks again for all your work. Akhooha (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) We're aware of that mirror site, and since all Wikipedia contributions, including drafts, are (supposed to be) freely licensed, there's nothing wrong with that, nor is there anything we can do about it (except that the mirror takes a rather cavalierly view of itself mentioning that the content is freely licensed). Huon (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request review at Ziquejie Rice Terrace

Dear Anne,

Thanks for your comment and suggestion on my article, so now I have added the reference for it, can you review it again, if there is still any problem, please feel free to let me know, I will try my best to make it better! Thank you.

kate (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Anne

Hey Anne,

The references in the Sanicola article are there to confirm the statements that the songs have charted. I was advised to do that by Davidwr. Is that cool? 173.52.117.156 (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.117.156 (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re City of Healing Article rejection

I realized why the copyright issue came up, somehow as the "City of Healing" article which appears in South East Asia Building 2010 originated in my office (DeWolff Partnership Architects) I have never felt any qualms about reproducing it, excerpting or transmitting. I realize now, because it was published by the Southeast Asia Building magazine, the possible copyright problem of downloading the PDF though my included reference link. I am certain the publisher gave us permission to redistribute-after all we wrote it! I have extensive first hand experience on this (KHIBC) project at DeWolff from 2005 to the present and am writing a new article in my own words with new content. References as before with Southeast Asia Building Mag. footnote. Will resubmit asap. voxclamantis 21:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voxclamintis (talk • contribs)

Dear voxclamantis: I am glad that you are going to rewrite the article. Even if you had written the other text yourself as a representative of your company, I believe that the copyright would lie with the company. Wikipedia has a policy that all of its editors must be individuals, not companies or company representatives, so that a neutral point of view can be maintained in the articles. Please be sure to find other independent sources to add to your article, because if the text of the magazine article was a press release from a company connected with the subject, it is a very weak source. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article for creation review

I would like to thank you for your helpful suggestions and hope that I have been able to incorporate them into the article I am trying to resubmit for review. This is the first time I have attempted to submit an article on Wikipedia and I know I did not properly make use of the helpful tips and suggestion prior to my attempts. I am not able to locate a resubmit button however, and hoped that perhaps you might assist me with a further review and possible acceptance of my article. Thank you for your consideration. The links is as follows http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/KGCS-22_Joplin,_Missouri_Southern_State_University

Rjfjelstad (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Robin Fjelstad[reply]

Dear Rjfjelstad: You seem to have found a bug in the submission process. I asked one of the tech people to fix your page so that you can resubmit. I'm sure they'll fix this up quickly. Sorry, I don't have time to do reviewing today; I'm in the middle of something else, but now that it's submitted another editor will see it. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preferred reference/footnote style for URLs --- semi-hidden with [ ..... ] or exposed?

Hi Anne, What's the preferred reference/footnote style for URLs --- hiding them in between brackets or leaving them exposed and instantly readable? Thanks for your help. Akhooha (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) With some very rare exceptions where the URL itself is the information we care about (such as company websites listed in the in company infobox, see for example the "apple.com" link at Apple Inc.) it's always better to "hide" it and instead to give a description of what the linked website is. In particular, we have the {{cite web}} template for website references that takes as parameters not just the URL but also the title, the access date and so on, and will format all that nicely while "hiding" the URL. See also WP:Referencing for beginners. Huon (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There, you have an answer from an expert. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both for such quick replies! Akhooha (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your AfC proposal

Hello,

I just wanted to inform you that I have done some formatting changes on the talk page of your AfC proposal. I have also removed one sign of yours from there (which I think may have been misplaced, but could be a signature). Please feel free to put it back if it was indeed a Support vote.

Also, feel free to revert any changes you think are unnecessary. You may also want to look into the RfC process to gather more discussion.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC) [Please post a Talkback if you reply to me][reply]

Thanks, The OriginalSoni, I guess you've done this before. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the discussion for RfC so everyone can comment on it. I have also prepared an alternative description heading for you should you wish to use it in your proposal. Feel free to use any parts of it in your original text.

- This is a proposed change to the current AfC structure to minimize the large number of articles which would be otherwise rejected almost immediately. The proposed mechanism involves a possible pop-up to ask the user to confirm their inclusion of citations. This would discourage such users from submitting the article, but add citations before submitting instead. Any editor who clicks on "YES" without actually reading repeatedly could then be warned/picked out for special attention. All changes, discussion and comments are to be added to User talk:Anne Delong/AfcBox.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I was unaware of Rfc. Your description made me realize that maybe expecting citations from first time submitters may be expecting too much, and so I added a comment that maybe references in some form or other might be acceptable, since if we set the bar too high we may lose editors. I didn't have any trouble with citations myself when I was a new submitter, but I had the advantage of having had to write many articles and essays throughout my life.

I have revised my description to be a little more clear. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Justice Action article

Good morning Anne,

I logged in today to find my article, Justice Action, had been deleted by another use because of reasons of deliberate copyright infringement.

This makes me very sad as I didn't have a final draft saved of what I had written outside of what I submitted here and now I must work on an old draft if I am to resubmit my article. It's also frustrating because my article was approved only a week ago, for it to be approved and then deleted so quickly without offering me any help to improve it first is very frustrating and is a big turn off to this whole process; I feel like I'm wasting my time here.

The person deleted it saying it infringed copyright as content was similar to the justiceaction.org website. I did use content from the site as a basis for what I had written but I thought I had referenced it properly, as in some parts I paraphrased their 'about' page and put some quotes in. Other content I wrote just myself. Perhaps I should have looked over it more before submitting it for review, but I certainly did not infringe any copyright deliberately, but rather through my own error. Why I wasn't given an opportunity to improve the text, add necessary references or just remove bits that were too similar to justiceaction's content I'm not sure.

I will now be resubmitting the article from scratch which is very frustrating as I was really happy with how the other version ended up, and took me a considerable amount of time as I struggle with wikipedia's formatting/code etc.

Is there any way I can recover my article if it has been deleted?

Thanks for your help.

Oceanlovejustice (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC) -David 23:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Oceanlovejustice:

It seems that Black Kite is the administrator who discovered the copyright problems and deleted the article. You can leave a message on this administrator's talk page, and ask for the text to be sent to your e-mail address. That way you can change it into your own words before bringing it back to Wikipedia, and you won't have to redo the references, etc. be sure to give the complete name of the page Justice Action (Australia). Please don't change just a few words; an encyclopedia article should be written from the point of view of a person not connected at all with the organization. I hope this helps. By the way, there is a special forum for new users the Teahouse, which I found helpful when I first started. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Additional comment from talk page stalker) Oceanjusticelove, we take our copyright infringement very seriously. So even if a single line appears to be a direct copy of somewhere else whose copyright may not be ours, we have to remove it immediately. I suggest that you ask the admin for your article, and rewrite it "completely". Please make sure not a single line will be the same as the previous page, and only then bring it back to Wikipedia. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May

Landlet

I've corrected the link you posted on their page - there's a space in front of the L which made it a redlink. Took me a bit to work out why I couldn't get to the page. Apart from that, I've deleted their userpage and blocked them for spamusername. Peridon (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now deleted the AfC page as a copyvio... Peridon (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peridon:

It seems that I was the one who accidentally added the space. I'm not sure how I managed to do this. However, I used the script to decline the page, so why didn't it replicate the page name? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know you could start a title with a space anyway. I wondered whether or not to move it, but decided against as it obviously wasn't going to be around for long. I wouldn't worry about it. Peridon (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Chamal ^T•C 02:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your feed-back on my proposed article about Mohamed Sahnoun. I'll try to follow your suggestions. Sbrass (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Translating

Hello Anne,

On April 17th, I tried to create a new article called Econocom. I wanted to create a translation of the corresponding article in the French Wikipdia, but the submission has been declined. Do I have to translate the article myself ?

Regards,

Jean-Marc Vidal — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMPVID (talk • contribs) 15:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jean-Marc: If I understand you correctly, you submitted an article that was not in English to the English Wikipedia. All of the articles in the English Wikipedia are in English. However, there are volunteers who speak both English and French, and you may be able to interest one of them in translating an article. To find out how, read Wikipedia:Translation. However, because these are other volunteer editors like you, there may be a long wait because there are always more articles needing to be translated than there are willing minds to do the work. If you have the ability and time to do the translation, please do it yourself. If the translation isn't perfect, others who read it will make corrections.

I would like suggest that you also visit the Teahouse, which is a great place to have questions like this one answered. Asking one editor might not work if that person happens to be busy or away. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References for Tucker Hollingsworth

Anne Delong -- Thanks for the reference cleanup. In support of FoCuSandLeArN's comments I added two more independent curatorial essays. Do you think that's enough and that they're uploaded correctly? My first article on Wiki and I'm definitely looking forward to contributing more once I get a sense of code down. Thanks again for your help. Plett bay (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Plett bay:

I took another look at your submission and I noticed that you had some citations that weren't showing up because there was no "reflist" template, so I added one for you. I don't know anything about curatorial essays. Are they published somewhere? in an exhibition pamphlet perhaps? I will not be able to review your article right now (writing a 200 page syllabus), but there are many other reviewers looking at the Articles for Creation submissions. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anne --

I looked up the curatorial essay -- they were published in exhibition catalogues and one of them will be published in Barrow Street's upcoming issue, edited by Peter Covino (University of Rhode Island).

Thanks for the help -- I'm going to work on submitting another article about camera "noise" -- my interest! 95.233.224.39 (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

many thanks . . .

I didn't even know you were editing my article (Lee H. Letts, sculptor) because I am still learning how to navigate Wikipedia---I thought little elves were making the improvements ;-) Thank you so much for your help! Marion Simons (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Marion Simons[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at Huon's talk page.
Message added 16:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Editing Chisenhale Gallery article

Dear Anne Delong, thank you very much for your comments. Additional references will be added to the draft article as you suggest. With many thanks, potato67--Potato67 (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heads-up

Just discovered this bot, which I thought you might be interested in. Dunno why I noticed the bot just now; maybe it wasn't active before... FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN. Is this currently being used? I have never seen a message like that on any of the talk pages where I have myself left similar messages.

My problem with using a bot for this job is that there are too many different ways that a person could have added references and I feel that human judgement or serious AI is needed to determine if an article is really unreferenced. Someone could just write "I found an article about this in Scientific American called The Amazing Life of the Snail, in Volume 22, Issue 6". How would a bot find that? Nevertheless, in manual mode it might save time, since it may be quicker to tell the bot to send an e-mail than to write one yourself. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen about 3 of these messages today, so it seems to be working to some extent. I believe it detects whether users added ref tags. If they didn't, it leaves a thorough explanation on how to place them on their talk pages (and it's highlighted in green, so they can't miss it). FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight banner at Regina Martínez Pérez's article

Hi Anne, you added an undue weight banner at Regina Martínez Pérez but no specific concerns were left in the related Talk page. Can you explain at Talk:Regina Martínez Pérez#What undue weight?, please? I'm willing to improve that page and your indications will be useful. Thank you!--QuimGil (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear QuimGil: When I read the article, I saw that about 80% of the article is about Ms. Matinez' death. The article hints at a very interesting life, but gives few details about it. I see that her birth date, place and education have been added to the infobox; that's a step in the right direction. I am left to wonder: did she marry and have any children? Did she begin writing about crime from the beginning, or did she write about other topics? Was she involved in any other activities besides journalism? Did she live in Xalapa during her whole career? Did she win any journalism awards? etc.

If you add a few more facts that are not about her death, then I will be happy to have you remove the "Undue weight" banner. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

afc

Keep up the good work-- your comments seem very much to the point. I just want to make sure you area ware of a very useful shortcut for really promotional articles--which is to simply nominate them for speedy deletion as promotional, G11. if there's no likelihood that a rewrite would have any promise of an article, it saves a good deal of trouble, for they will have to be removed sooner or later, and for promotional, sooner is better. There's no need to decline them first, or blank them,. I'm going to give some examples, which I will hold off on deleting for a few day, so you can see them :

Dear DGG:

I agree that these two articles are promotional, and would be promptly deleted if they were in mainspace. However, I understand that criteria are different in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation. I have been following the Afc reviewing directions, and using the Afc reviewing script. Promotional language is not listed there as one of the reasons for deletion or blanking, and I believe that once articles are in the Wikipedia:talk area search engines do not index them, so the writers receive no free advertising there.

I would prefer to continue following the instructions as written. I understand that there is a move afoot to delete articles that haven't been improved after a time period, so these articles will go away eventually anyway. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, you have left a similar message on my talkpage, so I thought I'd be innovative and respond here since Anne has already said what I was going to. Totally agree with the need to quickly remove promotional material from mainspace, however I tended to follow the approach Anne has outlined above for AFC and per the reviewing directions only nominate articles which are defamatory or similar. Also, if the goal of AFC is to offer a relatively gentle introduction and coaching in the ways of writing for wikipedia, then aggressive deletions is perhaps a bit counterproductive. Nonetheless, I'm happy to accept your suggestions if this is a widespread and accepted practice, however I do feel that it should be raised in discussion at project AFC and officially included as part of the reviewing directions if so - would this be reasonable for us to continue this discussion there? All the best, --_nonsense ferret 13:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is that promotional material is deleted wherever it appears in WP: The G11 criterion applies throughout WP. That the AfC instructions ignore this is one of the many things wrong with the process. but it doesn't supersede deletion policy. . The current discussion of using speedys for old afcs is at WT:CSD. If you want to raise the question of whether G11 applies to new afcs also, ask there. In fact, I will start the discussion DGG ( talk ) 14:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. It's better if you start the discussion, since you have a definite opinion. If others agree with you, maybe they'll add a new option in the script, or at least a new "quickfail" item in the instructions.—Anne Delong (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I feel that this is more a discussion about what the reviewer should do as a matter of course than whether the criteria apply, and therefore really concerning changing the reviewing instructions, it would be better to discuss at AFC board, therefore I have opened at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#RFC_re_routine_use_of_G11_Speedy_Delete_while_reviewing - I hope this makes sense. --_nonsense ferret 15:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewers will do what they please. just like they usually do; about half of submissions are reviewed wrongly, and the work flow is indecipherable. Fortunately, nothing about the project is policy, so the rest of us will cope with whatever nonsense they do there according to actual policy. I will use G11 according to WP:Deletion policy,as discussed at WT:CSD. After we confirm (or modify) the applicability of policy there, then they can adjust their instructions, and if you have an opinion on that, you might want to join the policy discussion where it will take place. I think it wrong to split discussions, and will make one my rare visits to the AfC talk p. to say so. DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just now nominated the M Models article for CSD as G11. Another admin will judge. I have not yet decided what if anything to do about the other. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as well. I looked up some information about this company, and it seems that if they are notable it wouldn't be for the information in the article. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

twinkle comment

Hey anne,

This is totally unrelated but I just wanted to check. Do you have Twinkle enabled? Or proveit? I find both of them very useful in getting things done. If you havent, then enable them already. If you have, then nevermind.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have Twinkle, and I use the tagging and deletion features quite a bit, although not so much in Afc. Thanks anyway. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Closure

Hello,

I think it might be time to move on with/finalize the details of your RfC on AfC. I suggest you go to WP:ANRFC for requesting closure. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was wondering what to do next. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unison RTOS Article

Hi, Anne! I was looking for additional articles for rathet long time - but unfortunately it is rather difficult. The issue is that companies are secretive about implementation. The reason is simple, they don't want competitors copying their successful approaches. I have found few more links - but they are connected with RoweBots Inc.

Could you please advise the next steps about that article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ola.solonenko (talk • contribs) 12:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ola:

More proprietary information about implementation is not what is needed to make this article successful. What's needed are articles written by industry experts or journalists acknowledging the product and its uses. Here's one: http://mil-embedded.com/news-id/?28251 .

I think this one looks pretty independent: http://www.digikey.com/us/en/techzone/microcontroller/resources/articles/expanding-os-choices.html

Here are two more, but these may be press releases; maybe you will know:

http://citizenwire.com/2011/10/11/ctw3865_085922.php

http://enewschannels.com/2013/03/17/enc18147_210001.php

Part of the problem is that Ms Rowe has sent out so many press releases about her products that it wasn't necessary for many journalists to write much themselves! Anyway, see if you can add citations to any of the above web sites next to some of the facts in your Unison article . When you are done, click in the pink box (where it says "click here") to resubmit the article. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banjo Article

As regards your change to the begining of the Banjo Article, yes, thank you -- that's exactly the change I would have put in, had I been able to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Hill

Thanks for your contributions on James Hill! I had the honor of taking a workshop with him a couple weeks ago. What an amazing musician! I was really surprised that there wasn't a page for him here! Aggie80 11:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggie80 (talk • contribs)

The Bug Squasher Award for Excellence

		The Bug Squasher Award for Excellence
		For your recent timely error reports, I award you the Bug Squasher Award for Excellence in troubleshooting efforts. Thank you for catching this error so quickly! Thanks for your effort to test the beta version of the AFC helper script. Keep up in greatly reports helping to improve the script. Regards, mabdul 13:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!

Man I want to thank you for the changes you made to the Minnie Stevens Piper article. I'm very nervous since this is my first submission. Doing this "right" seems so daunting. In the last five years or so Wikipedia has undergone some massive shifts in terms of the rise in the quality of submissions and this particular one is huge for Texans, thus I wanted to "do it right". The changes you made were so much appreciated.

I am originally from Michigan and my grandmother's people came from up in Grey County, Ontario and I see you too do genealogy. I thought that was very cool. I also love Bluegrass. I think your submissions are really great - I looked at some and you're a skilled writer in addition to being a musician.

Once again thank you for all your help. Very much appreciated. If there's ever anything I can do to return the favor please let me know - warmest regards - Kevin Handy - newbie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfwenigma (talk • contribs) 19:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kevin: Yes, Wikipedia is trying to keep up its standards, because people have come to rely on it so much. As a genealogist, I have come to realize that Wikipedia really can't be used as a venue to publish genealogies. When someone writes a book about their family, they usually include a page about each person, no matter what that person's life was like. Wikipedia, on the other hand, has a policy that only people who have been extensively written about for their own accomplishments or involvement in bringing about newsworthy events get their own articles. Others are mentioned in articles of other people or events. For example, a person could be married to a famous actor, or be the parent of a great writer, or be descended from the King of France, but this won't lead to an article about that person, only a mention in the article about the famous person. If a person died in a shipwreck, for example, he or she would be mentioned on the article about the shipwreck.

I am mentioning this because some of your article seems more genealogical than encyclopedic. First ask yourself, what aspects of Minnie Piper's life have been written about in published works not by relatives? Well, there seems to be her creative works, her land controversy and her charitable foundation. You've added information about various relatives and inlaws, without supporting sources, and these should only be there if they had a direct connection to these notable aspects of her life. It would be better to leave out some of this and concentrate on finding written sources about her personal activities. The sources don't have to be on line; old newspaper clippings are okay as long as you know what newspaper and date they are from. You may have trouble getting your article accepted as is because (1) obituaries are usually written up by families and not from a neutral point of view and need further confirmation (2) the Operation Pied Piper article doesn't mention Minnie, and (3) several others just mention her in one sentence or less.

I am chairing a big conference for the Ontario Genealogical Society next weekend, so I'd better get back to work now.

Oh, by the way, please sign your posts by typing for "tildas" (~). Also, try visiting the WP:Teahouse; it's just for beginners.

If you like bluegrass, maybe you'd like to help out with some of the tasks on my bluegrass page at User:Anne Delong/Bluegrass Topics, or add your own items to my list. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anne, Thanks for the advice. Perhaps you are right. The organization she founded has no page. And they give very little information about her. I felt that since she was so integral to Texas history. The obituary is used as a source, however, I also used confirming information from other sources. I hear what you're saying, however, sometimes people are important (for instance in Texas many faculty and students receive a Minnie Piper Stevens award) from the foundation. I confirmed much of the information from third party sources - some was not in the obituary but was in fact was from US government sources. I tried finding others and had difficulty. I called the San Antonio library but they couldn't seem to give me much. I'm not sure how much more supporting detail I could provide given what's available. The Operation Pied Piper article doesn't mention Minnie and I haven't been able to find a confirming article on the song she composed. Her grandson's article barley mentions her - and the Foundation mentions her only very briefly. I'm not sure what one should do in those cases. I think sometimes Wikipedia's rules are a bit too stringent. If a great deal is already published on a given topic what is the point of the Wiki?24.238.141.180 (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sometimes there is a lot of information, but also a lot of junk to look through, whereas if you look to Wikipedia you will find substantial information instead of puffery and opinion. However, don't give up. If the reviewers turn you down, just keep the draft article and you may come across some info later. Or, change the focus of your article. You say that many people receive these awards. Maybe the article should be about the awards, who founded them, who decides how they are awarded, maybe notable winners, etc. Often college magazines report award winners, and sometimes local news. Here's one that I found right away: http://www.utexas.edu/news/tag/minnie-stevens-piper-foundation/. http://utsa.edu/facultyawards/awards/piper.html The the background on Minnie and her husband(s) could be a small part of the article. Someone has even written a book about this award. (http://books.google.ca/books?id=CYT1mQEACAAJ)

—Anne Delong (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I saw your post at the Teahouse. 10000 edits in 6 months, is really impressive! ^King Jakob _C2 01:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in tagging Wikipedia articles for deletion. Articles on Wikipedia don't take up any of my resources, and it's not as if it were a printed encyclopedia and we were killing trees to edit and publish it - not that I'm a bleeding heart, tree-hugging liberal, 'cause I'm not. If Wikipedia Moderators are so stupid and misogynistic that they'd rather publish articles about raps entitled "Fuck It!" or lyrics such as "Fuck you, you 'ho'!" or movies entitled The Pink Pussy: Where Sin Lives than articles about a woman who has become the face of the Hawaiian hula on Google, and is one of the few women to have played the role of the Biblical Queen Jezebel in a feature length, live action move, so be it.William Mortensen Vaughan, U.S. Army Staff Sergeant (Retired) (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KHIBC Article

I must confess at this point some confusion. Where is the copyright issue in my article? The text is all original. I have footnoted the publication referenced and linked to web pages otherwise. Please help. voxclamantis 16:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voxclamintis (talk • contribs)

Dear voxclamantis:

You have indeed removed the copyright issues. The editor who declined the article was concerned about other things that are likely easily fixed: a promotional point of view and lack of independent references. Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, which means that not only the pleasant things about a topic should be mentioned. That's easier to do if you are not closely connected with the topic, but it can still be done. I don't have time to look carefully just now (I have a meeting shortly), but I will look this over later in the day. (It is noon here in Canada.) In the mean time, see if you can find news reports or magazine articles about the institute that are not written by those who helped to build or run it. Don't worry, this is an important institution. Wikipedia wants an article about this topic, and when the article is right it will be accepted. Also, for balance, if there were any concerns or difficult decisions during the development of the Institute, these should be included if they were written about in the media. (For example, where to put it or environmental concerns, or who should be in charge, or what company to use to build it, etc., etc.). I will write again when I have more time. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PART II: Well, I have had time to read over the article carefully, and I am surprised to find that it isn't really about the cancer centre at all, but more a promotional piece about the architectural firm that designed it. No wonder it was declined! I can't even tell from the article if the centre is in operation or not. I have tried to add a couple of balancing facts, but I don't know enough to do a good job, and nor do I have time right now to do the proper research. In order to be accepted, this article can be developed in two ways: (1) Change the title of the article to "The design and construction of the King Hussein Institute for Biotechnology and Cancer" and then find at least four or five news articles which are not press releases about the topic to use as references, or (2) Cut down the section about the architectural company by about 2/3, leaving out information intended to promote the people involved, and add instead some paragraphs about the centre's opening, current operation and activities,research, etc., again with news or health magazine articles to back up the information. I am sorry that I may have mislead you in saying that the article would be easy to fix; I should have waited until I had more time to read it carefully before replying. —Anne Delong (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

French Speaking people

Do you know anyone in Ontario or Canada that speaks French? Ashbeckjonathan 19:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably, why do you ask? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A quick reminder or two

Hello,

I just wanted to point out that your AfC proposal was (finally) closed successfully, and there should be no more problems with implementation. I thought I should just ping you about that, just in case you missed it.

Secondly, it might be useful to "link" people's usernames while replying to them (like I can say T13 and he gets a ping to this page ;) [Nothing really important here T13. You can get back to work unless you can help in implementing the above AFC proposal]). That way, they get a notification for this message too, just in case they dont check their talk page (which many newcomers sometimes miss).

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I probably can help with it. I just need a little time to figure out the best way too accomplish the goal. ;) Technical 13 (talk) 10:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Sahnoun

I'm puzzled by your reply. I've added external references. Do you require still more? I thought that the ethos of Wikipedia was to help people simply and easily get something up on-line, and then let others correct and complete. I've put quite a lot of time and work into this piece. I'm not highly computer-skilled, and I'm close to giving up. Sbrass (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sbrass: It was not I who declined your article this time, but another reviewer. I looked over your article and I see that you have added some references, but they weren't in a format that made them show up on your reference list, whereas the ones about Mr. Sahnoun's book were, so it made the article appear not to have independent references. I have reformatted them for you, although I've been short of time and the citation style is a little rough. You can see that the list of references is much longer now. I also created sections to make the information more readable.

There is one more thing that needs to be changed in this article before it can be accepted, and luckily it is not something that requires computer expertise. The article is written more as a tribute to Mohamed Sahnoun than as an encyclopedia article. Only the plain facts should be in the article, not opinions or accolades or promotion of a point of view or theory. The long sections of quotes from Mr. Sahnoun should be left out, as well as anything controversial or provocative unless you can prove it with a written reference. For example, you state that he was succeeding where others failed. This shouldn't be in the article unless you specify what exactly he was succeeding at, which reliable source said he was succeeding at it, and who had failed in this area before. It's probably easier just to remove the sentence.

I have had some experience at getting articles accepted. If you would like, I can edit it so that it meets the guidelines. If you don't like the result, you can go to the "View History" tab and undo it. Let me know if you want me to do this. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Train Songs

Hi, Anne: I found your work through a post on the Tea Garden and wanted to let you know I was impressed by your efforts in writing articles on bluegrass and related subjects. My own passion of late has been the List of train songs. When I came upon this article about four years ago, it was a list borrowed (with permission) from another Internet site. Since then, I've vetted and added significantly to the article's songs, including listing composers and recording artists and adding wikilinks to songs/artists/composers and cross-references between "families" of songs.

The most time-consuming - and what I believe has been the most valuable - aspect of this has been the inclusion of citations, the subject of your Tea Garden inquiry. Previously, I had worked on the List of singer-songwriters. When someone posted a citations-needed template on the article, I was irritated by the thought. For one, a basic guideline for the article was notability, as determined by the requirement that an artist must have a wikilink to be included, in which case, a reader can simply link to an artist's article to determine whether she/he was in fact a singer-songwriter. My second objection was how time-consuming it would be to include a citation for every artist. However, my experience in sourcing train songs has proven first, the value of citations to readers in providing access to source materials and second, the value in forcing editors to become more knowledgeable on the subjects they are writing about.

My train song research has taken me to all corners of the musical globe. Along the way, I have learned about the development of genres, the histories of publishing and recording, the backgrounds of artists from the 1800s through the present, and so forth. As for readers, the train song article, in my opinion, has become a gateway to the scholarship on the subject. In addition, the article's readership has grown from 3,000 or so readers monthly to 15-20,000.

I thought I'd share these thoughts with you regarding the articles you have been working on, particularly the lists. Also, given your musical knowledge and WP experience, I would appreciate your feedback on how the train song article is shaping up, including any ideas for improving it. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anne: Thanks for the compliments on the List of Train Songs. Both "All the Good Times Are Past and Gone" and "Train Is A-Comin'" are traditional. The first was recorded by Ralph Stanley, among others. The second has probably been done by even more artists, most notably, Pete Seeger and Peggy Seeger. I think they're great "finds." Consider them added. Allreet (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - Mohamed Sahnoun

Thanks for your message. I've tried a little more editing, and adding references. If this isn't adequate, of course I'm very happy for you to have a go.

PS. I'm struggling with finding how to reply to your message... I hope that this reaches you.

Sbrass (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Runaway Bunny (musical composition), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tubby the Tuba and Shawn King (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June

Stephanie Calmerson

Anne

Good afternoon, I am creating the page for Stephanie Calmenson - I am ask to ask reliable sources, yet they are already in the article. Is there a specific area where they should be?

Kind regards, Carmen gonzalez (Harry&rosie (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Dear Carmen: The sources have to be independent; that means not directly connected with Stephanie Calmenson. Videos of her reading her books or talking about them, Facebook pages created by her or by her publisher, profiles from organizations to which she belongs, etc., are not independent. What's needed are book reviews by other professional reviewers, news articles (not press releases) about her books or activities written by journalists, etc. Here's an example: Growing Up with Literature and Well Read Reviews and Midwest Book Review —Anne Delong (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to DataMotion, Inc. may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Babillon Tower

Hello Anne,

I just created Babillon Tower page, you asked for source like press,news etc.

So I added it and hope it will be enough, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielDoinitsin (talk • contribs) 23:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC) (fixed)—Anne Delong (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Babillon Tower (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Georgia

William Rush (actor) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Shameless

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC) (fixed)—Anne Delong (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Illouz

Dear Anne I have corrected the page of Dan Illouz adding third party sources. Let me know if anything else needs to be done. Thank you. El — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.74.32 (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a few changes, such as changing the "Dan"s to the last name as per Wikipedia convention.

The sources you added were good ones. I have moved the newspaper sources about treaties to the reference section, but you will have to fill in the detail of what papers they were, etc., since I can't read them.

Because your subject is a living person involved in controversial work, this article needs more references than most, because once it is in the encyclopedia its facts are likely to be challenged. The section about philosophy is mostly opinion and should either be backed up by citations or just left out.

There's a little of what we at Wikipedia call "puffery" here, too. The section about the 70.000 volunteers needs to be reworded. The text makes it sound as though every one of them was under his supervision out doing his bidding. Maybe this is the case, but the references don't support this. A more likely situation is that Mr. Illouz set up a facebook group, and 70,000 people (rather than volunteers), joined the group.

Once these changes have been made, I think the article will pass. Remember, though, that other Wikipedia editors around the world will then change and add to it as they see fit. I'm sure that someone add the criticism of the video which is mentioned in one of the news articles. You might want to include this yourself rather than have someone else choose the wording. Then please submit the article again.

—Anne Delong (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Seward

You've nominated Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anne Seward for speedy deletion on the basis of being a copyright violation because it... copies from 1911encyclopaedia.org.

1911 Encyclopedia is the Britannica edition from 1911. It's not a copyright violation, because it is out of copyright. In fact, large chunks of Wikipedia were taken from the 1911 Britannica. I've undone your AfC decline and speedy delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tom Morris: I checked the web site that was given as a reference before declining, and it specifically says that all text is copyright. Are you sure that it is okay? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the website is wrong. They can assert that they own the 1911 Britannica encyclopedia... but they don't. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/t of number-one hits of 2013 (Austria)

Did you have a moment when creating Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/t of number-one hits of 2013 (Austria)? :-P

I just noticed a bunch of weird redirects and a double redirect. I've fixed them for you. :) Pol430 talk to me 16:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't pay attention to the strange title when I accepted the article. Also, the Accept script didn't put the page in mainspace as expected, and when I tried to move it I chose the wrong space from the list. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at WT:AFC.
Message added 19:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hasteur (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hector rosales

hello, just a quick fact. You commented on my page that I had created about Hector Rosales, and asked me to change the links for the spanish newspaper into references. I do not believe i need to do that because I only put those websites in there as "extras" to get more information about Hector Rosales if the reader wanted more information. Please message back and tell me if that answers what you were trying to say about my article! ((:

-pepetink — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepetink (talk • contribs) 15:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pepetink:

Of course you are free to ignore my advice. I am just another Wikipedia editor like you. However, your assertion that the Spanish newspaper references are extras leads me to think that you believe that the three references which are citations are sufficient for the article to be accepted. I can tell you that this is not the case. The first and third are from Mr. Rosales' own web site, which can't be considered an independent source, and the second clearly states at the bottom that it is text taken from Wikipedia, which can't be used to verify itself. Not being able to speak Spanish, I can give no opinion about whether the sources in Spanish will be considered reliable independent sources. You'll have to wait for a Spanish-speaking reviewer. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! After reviewing the article in question: it doesn't fulfill notability guidelines, and as such won't be accepted unless independent and reliable sources are provided. Given this is a biography, any special attention needs to be given to verifiability. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand now about the notability requirements, thanks to FoCuSandLeArN's comment. So, anytime you write an article about a living individual, you cannot use their own written information as a source??? Let me just help you to understand where I am coming from.....I am a 17 year old high school student who was given an assignment to write an article on a person taken from Wikipedia's own "Authors who have no articles written about them" page. My entire class had to choose one author to write about. But, right from the beginning, we were all in the dark, as the teacher basically just threw the assignment at us and told us to go to Wikipedia Wizard. That is ALL he told us. We all had absolutely no idea how or where to begin, what the "notability" rule was about, how to cite references, what inline citations were or how to note them, etc., etc., etc...... We were completely on our own, with no help from him, whatsoever, to help us navigate through the incredible amount of info we had to wade through, and we were on our own to try to make sense of the entire research, formatting and editing process! To be honest, I got an A+ on the project, but I did not understand any of the technical aspects of what I did!! The language on the Wiki help sites was beyond my understanding, for the most part....which probably explains why I couldn't make sense of the "notability" requirement. I actually believed that going to the living individual would provide THE best source of information, as they would be telling you about their lives and works, themselves!

There were two other problems for me, in particular, with this assignment.....1) There were just three sources of information to be found, anywhere, on the web, relating to Rosales. How could I have got more information on him???? Apart from one or two magazine articles written about him in Spanish, there was literally no information on Rosales! Even the Spanish language book reviews had to be translated and even then, the information given related to his works, not to the man himself; our assignment was to write about the author, not just about this works. 2) Wikipedia's list of "authors who have no articles written about them" page is out of date. I actually began research on 23 different authors from that list before I came upon information that directly led me to a written and published Wikipedia article on that particular author.

As an experienced editor, if you were given my assignment, how would you have approached it, and where on earth would you go for information on Rosales??

Thank you:)

Pepetink (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC) pepetink[reply]

Dear Pepetink: I am sorry not to have responded sooner; I have been away from the Internet this weekend. About having to go through many names before finding one to write about: Sometimes there's a reason that there is no article about a certain person. Anyone can add to the list of articles wanted, and sometimes people add names of people that are not well known.

Since you have chosen a Spanish-speaking person to write about, I presume that you can speak Spanish, and can understand the newspaper articles that you found. You will be able to tell if a particular article backs up certain facts that are in the article you wrote. If so, add a citation next to that section of the text, and you are one step toward showing "notability", which basically means that the person has been written about in the media or in books, etc. (If not, you can try "Google translate" The interview in the Journal of Poetry could also contain facts, particularly anything written by the interview rather than spoken by the poet.

About using the person's own work as a source: You can't use that material to show "notability, since that means that others are writing about the person. However, you can use the person's own work for other information; for example, if the person has written and published a book of poetry, you can make a reference to the book to confirm in your article the name of the book, the publisher, and other facts like that.

If you have been using search engines only to find your information, be aware that a lot of information which is available on the internet is not available to search engines because it is in databases. If you can find a newspaper or magazine in the right area where Mr. Rosales may be known, you can go to the newspaper website and see if you can search past issues. If you find a reference in a book, but the book is not on line, you can see if your local library can get it in on Interlibrary Loan. You can use worldcat.org to see if a library near you has a copy.

Wikipedia has Wikiprojects that may help. There's Wikipedia:Wikiproject Uruguay and Wikipedia:Wikiproject poetry, for example. You could leave messages asking for help on the talk pages. You could ask where they think information could be found. This may or may not work, depending on who happens to read the posts. That's all I can think of for now. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spherical Rolling Joints

Hello Anne, Thank you for the review.

I just have a question about the requested sources (newspaper, journal ect.)

I am looking for sources to support technical specification on this mechanism - I am not sure technical specification will be supported anywhere other than the manufacturer's literature. Would it be better to omit specifics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdankowych (talk • contribs) 20:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mdankowych: An important part of an article about "spherical rolling joints" is a description that is detailed enough so that the reader can tell the difference between a spherical rolling joint and another type of joint. To that extent specifications are useful. However, I presume that these joints can be different sizes and be composed of slightly different materials, etc., particularly if they are made by different companies or are for different intended uses. You won't want to be so specific in your specifications that it seems that only one particular product is an SRJ - that makes the article look like advertising.

There's no reason not to include the spec sheets. They have good diagrams and interesting information. However, there are other aspects of this topic that need to be covered by independent (not company) sources. Remember that most of your readers will not be engineers. If this is a well-known type of joint, then in tech journals or industry magazines there must be articles pointing out its strengths and weaknesses, its preferred uses, how it came to be developed and by whom, etc. A quick check on the internet using Google indicates that the SRJs are used for laser positioning devices, in artificial limbs, and race cars. Adding that type of information and using non-company sources will make the article more acceptable and also more interesting overall. I hope this helps. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick response - I will work with this feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdankowych (talk • contribs) 14:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initiative Science

Dear Anne Delong,

I would like to recreate the IS wikipedia page. Can you give me some advices how to make it successfully? I work for the company, and I used the website and other Program Guides what our Organization uses all the time. I may not understand the problem with the pictures, so it would be very useful and a huge help from you if you give me some advices. Thank you, Stefi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancs.stefani (talk • contribs) 13:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Stefi: According to your list of contributions, you are a new user and this is your first edit. Did you create the page under another name, or did someone else create it? The article was deleted two months ago and I have worked on hundreds of articles since, so I no longer remember anything about it. However, I can give you some general advice base on Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not intended to be an advertising venue, and in general when employees of a company make an article it comes out sounding very promotional. It's difficult to see your own company from an unbiased perspective. If you plan to take on this task you will have to keep a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

Prepared material from your company website and program guides can't be used for copyright reasons. The article must be written in your own words, because you must write it as Wikipedia editor, not a company representative. You should realize that after you have submitted it any Wikipedia editor in the world is free to change and add to it. Also, you must add references to independent reliable sources such as news reports, magazine articles, product reviews, etc., not written by your company.

About the photos: I believe that the company logo can be used on the web site under fair use policies, since it represents the company. Any other images should be donated by their creators or copyright holders to Wikimedia Commons at http://commons.wikimedia.org/‎. They will then be freely licensed, and anyone in the world can use them, including you. If you have images but you don't hold the copyright, then please don't put these on the page.

To maximize your chances of having the article be accepted, keep it factual, only writing information that can be verified independently, and don't fill it with links to web sites.

I hope this helps. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

submitted draft article modified as you requested

Dear Miss Delong,

As you requested, we have entered appropriate references alongwith the link to Eurolib website and to our members.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Eurolib

Thank you in advance to endorse the article Liutprando (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Liutprando:

The article does not appear to have been changed since I replied to your last message in April, when I reported that I had blanked out several sections of this article because they used copyright text from the Eurolib web site. For legal reasons of which librarians are all aware, Wikipedia can't accept text that has been published elsewhere. Please click on the link that you provided above and you will see what I mean. Each editor contributes as an individual, not as a representative of any organization, and so the editor must write the text personally. The references that you provided will be fine when the text has been reworded, and when the comment brackets are removed they will show up again. Until these copyright problems are gone, the article cannot be added to the encyclopedia. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anne Delong. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by —Anne Delong (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Erm, Anne, I think you sent the talkback to the wrong person. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TH host

Dear Anne Delong,

Thank you for volunteering as a Host at the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a community of people working together to make knowledge free. You are an important part of that effort! By joining as a Host, and by following our expectations, you are helping new users to get started here at Wikipedia, and aiding more experienced users who just have a question about how something works. We appreciate your willingness to help!

Here are some links you may find helpful as a Host:

Useful scripts you can install to make responding easier,
templates to use and, of course:
the question forum itself.

Editors who have signed up as hosts, but who have not contributed at the Teahouse for six months or so may be removed from the list of hosts.

Cheers, ~~~~

Technical 13 (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rick DeLong name

  My name is Rick DeLong and Wikipedia has told me that you denied my creation of a page due to my lack of credibility, I think.  
  I have written two short stories available on Amazon.com, Smashwords.com, and a variety of other sites.  
  I am involved in the marketing of my new book, "About Meghan," and I would like to upload information about myself and my books.
  I have contributed to Wikipedia and I understand that we need facts and not speculation.  Any paperwork or information you need, I can readily provide.  
  Anything I can do, just let me know.  I would really like to see my name on this page, not only as a contributor, but also as an author.
  Thank you.
  Rick DeLong

Habanerorick (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rick: I thought that the comment I added at the top of the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rick DeLong page was pretty clear, but maybe you didn't see it. All articles in Wikipedia, and especially those about living people, have to be backed up by reliable independent sources. For an author, that means that information about their writing has to have been written by journalists or other professional authors and published in recognized newspapers, magazines, books, etc. Reviews which are not press releases, author profiles in literary magazines, news reports about the author or his work are all good. Several are needed, and material written by the author or his publisher doesn't count.

If an author is new or has not been written about in these types of publications, then according to Wikipedia policy there should not be an article about that person in Wikipedia yet. This is because it is an encyclopedia rather than a place to promote new products.

Authors usually make a point of saving press clippings, so you will know better than anyone else if these sources exist, and if so please add citations to them to the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rick DeLong article and then submit it again. —Anne Delong (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

page deleted

Hi Anne,

Thanks for your message. The page was deleted for its copyright content? Could you please specify so I don't make the same mistake again? Which part/info was considered copyright and why? I have put the references and respective links... also I have used wiki pages that already exist as a model, so I am not sure which part of the content is "wrong".

Thanks so much for your comments! Im new here so I am still trying to figure it out :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathykrier (talk • contribs) 07:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cathykrier: You don't say in your posting which article you are talking about. Since Wikipedia has four million of these articles, can you please be more specific? What was the title of the article?

In general though, any text which has been previously published, such as on a web site or in a newspaper, etc., is considered copyright. Wikipedia editors all contribute as individuals, not as representatives of the people or places or companies that they are writing about, so the text must be written specifically for Wikipedia for legal reasons. —Anne Delong (talk) 09:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Anne Delong: Cathykrier is talking about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cathy Krier which you declined as a copyvio.

@Cathykrier: Thanks for your message! The page you created, despite being referenced and linked to other wikipedia articles, was still a copyright violation. Its content was almost identical to this website. You can read more at Wikipedia:Copyright violations and Wikipedia:Copyrights. Basically, any text needs to be your own writing and not found elsewhere. Anne and I can point you to more information but any submission must be your own writing, not copied from elsewhere. You may also want to read this page as well, as you seem to be the subject in question. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Amorymeltzer, for stepping in to answer this question; I've been at a festival without Internet for several days. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraph corrected on wiki page- ready for review/approval

Hi Anne, you reviewed my wiki page and left comments saying my wiki page didn't have a lead paragraph. It does now. Could you please take a look and aprove it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engelbertha_Krupp

Thanks

David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstrob (talk • contribs) 16:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dstrob: It wasn't me that added the tag about having no lead paragraph to that article, but I agree that it has a lead paragraph now, so I have removed that particular tag. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Platform505

Hi there Anne - I am editing the Platform505 article again, using your suggestions - this is my first wiki article from scratch, but I am beginning to get it!! Thanks - Melanie AKA Icecream53 (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to here it, Icecream53, go for it! Don't forget the independent, reliable sources such as news reports, magazine articles, reviews, etc. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Social Commerce

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/social commerce

Dear Budur alzahrani: For some reason your whole article has been copied onto my talk page. I have deleted the text and instead put a link to the page that you are developing. You didn't leave me any message, so I am guessing that you would like an opinion about your article. Here goes: To start with, there is already an article in Wikipedia called Social commerce. The encyclopedia doesn't need two articles on the same topic. On the other hand, the information and sources you have gathered can be a valuable contribution if you combine them with the information in the existing article. Just read over the existing article and see where you can improve it. Don't change parts that are already well covered unless you can add something significant or a new reference

See how the editors of the Social commerce article have inserted the sources right in to the paragraphs, and how Wikipedia then adds the citation numbers and creates the reference list at the bottom.

Also see how each paragraph is not indented, but instead has a blank line to separate it from the next paragraph. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

rewards

i want rewards like u. what shud i can do?Sonia Sevilla (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sonia Sevilla: Well, when I was a new editor I started adding to pages and making my own articles, and very often I didn't know how to do things, so I asked a lot of questions about specific problems at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. That's how I got my first badge - the "Great Question" badge. I was always careful to put plenty of independent sources, such as news reports, magazine articles, chapters in books, etc., in my articles, and that's how I got the "New editor on the right path" badge. When you ask questions, either at the Wikipedia:Teahouse or at the Wikipedia:Help desk, other editors enjoy helping you and they can see that you are trying to learn and become a better editor. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback syntax

Hi Anne Delong I was wonder if you could share the syntax for linking a teahouse question in the talkback message you leave on an editor's Talk page. I am using <code{{teahouse talkback|=~~~~}}. Thanks Flat Out let's discuss it 03:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, [[Flat Out. When I signed up as a Teahouse host, I was given the option of activating some scripts and CSS. I did that, and now when I am on the Teahouse page I see a little TB symbol after each editor's name. First I highlight and copy the title of the section. Then I click on the TB and the script asks me to input the title. I paste it in and press enter. I never see the syntax. It is quite helpful. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll have a look at those scripts. Cheers Flat Out let's discuss it 04:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that I found the syntax to do this manually {{WP:Teahouse/Teahouse_talkback|WP:Teahouse/Questions|question title goes here|ts=~~~~}} - Flat Out let's discuss it 05:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. The submission has not been accepted because it included copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

The existing submission may be deleted at any time. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.

If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! —Anne Delong (talk) 06:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you!

Hi from one recent(ish) recruit to WP:AfC to another. Just like me your are submitting lots of helpful, good quality reviews. Rankersbo (talk) 10:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at Rankersbo's talk page.
Message added 13:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Rankersbo (talk)

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at Huon's talk page.
Message added 19:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at Aggie80's talk page.
Message added 22:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page creation for Piotr Piecuch

Dear Anne,

Thank you for the insight on what needed to be done with my article about a living person (it definitely made it into a better article). I have made revisions with references to independent sources in which other authors or journalists discuss Prof. Piecuch and/or his work. When you have time, I look forward to hearing what you or another Wikipedia correspondent has to say about this page and hope it can be accepted. Jahansen (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)jahansen[reply]

CONTEXTUAL DATA MODELING

I have written an article for Wikipedia but now realize I can't submit it, for two reasons. One, I have a vested interest because I am the inventor of the patent referenced. Also, before I realized that, I had tried the Wizard and gave up. In a little over 3 months I'll be 90, and I simply can't handle it. So, I'm looking for someone to submit it, then I have a list of cognitive scientists, and others, who I will invite to critique/edit it. The article is at execware.com/cdm.pdf. Please let me know if you're willing to submit it. Thank you! Bob Listou rlistou@execware.com72.192.252.90 (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 72.192.252.90: Are you really User:Rlistou and have forgotten to sign in? I am going to assume that you are. I see that you have been trying to add a reference to your draft article to the "Visual analytics" article. Since this is a draft, rather than a published article, it's not suitable as a reference until it's published.

Now, about your draft article PDF: I presume that the topic you would like to have in Wikipedia is "Contextual data modelling". Is this a term that you have made up yourself to describe your work? Before a term can have an article in Wikipedia, it has to have been discussed and reported by several well-known reliable sources that are not connected to the originator of the term. I see that one of the sources you have listed is your patent, and that is fine for its information value. Do the other three references that you list talk specifically about the term "contextual data modelling"?

What you have written is an essay. It is more suitable for publication in a professional journal. When creating an 'essay', the author includes sources from which his or her original ideas are developed. However, an 'encyclopedia article' doesn't put forth ideas and develop arguments, but instead is a digest of what has been written about that topic in other published sources, which are then cited. The article shouldn't have any premises, conclusions, etc., as an essay would have.

If you would like this topic in Wikipedia, here's what to do:

FIRST: Find several well-known independent sources that have written about "contextual data modelling". Computer science journal articles? Business news outlets (not press releases like the ones in Business Week)? Software reviews? I wouldn't know where to look, but you may.

SECOND: Write a much simpler article such as this: Contextual data modelling is a mathematical process developed by _______ in (date) and incorporated by __________ in the development of ___________ software. The purpose of CDM is _____________ and it is used in the following situations _________. Alternatives to CDM are ____________, but CDM is preferable in ____________ situations because ____________. (The article must be readable by an educated person who is not a mathematician or a computer scientist). References (here put citations to the items you found written about CDM by outside authors all of the claims of usefulness, etc., should be backed up by the sources). External links (here put a reference to the patent and to a company web site or other non-independent information source).

What I have written as your suggested article probably doesn't make sense because I do not understand your article as written, but I hope you can see the general form that article should take.

I know this is not what you were hoping to hear. Sorry! —Anne Delong (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Anne, for your thoughtful and thorough response. I will re-direct my efforts accordingly. But let me answer your questions. Yes, CDM is a term I coined, in one of my 7 patents (last one Nov 2012). No, the 3 references don't cite CDM. they are published scholarly works that support CDM. Anne, I've been coming at this backwards! My goal was a Wiki article I could then ask cognitive scientists, and others, to critique. Now, following your guidance, I will simply send them my "essay". BTW, there is no alternative to CDM, only software using my patents enables CDM. But the rest of the article scenario you suggested is very helpful and I will keep your superb response for future use. Thank you very much, Bob Listou.Rlistou (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Bob, good luck with your efforts to improve the world of data analysis. I have had some interest in this area at a simpler level in the past when I was developing computer aided instruction and had to analyze response patterns in order to direct the flow of the instruction. Also, my son Andrew Delong (http://www.psi.toronto.edu/~andrew/) is involved in data analysis in the field of computer vision with biological applications. I hope that you will still make a Wikipedia article, but even if you don't, once your concept finds useful applications someone is bound to write about it and it will end up in the encyclopedia later. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CatScan

Hi!

Here's an example of how I've been using CatScan 2: [1] I probably should have made it clear that I was using the rewrite, which probably created some of the confusion. Sorry about that!

That link I provided above fills in some of the fields with examples of how I've been using it.

For the categories, I've been using "Declined AfC submissions", and/or the decline-reason categories, in the example above I'm using one of the latter.

To get the articles that haven't been touched in six months (or twelve, but the example above uses six) I've been filling in the "Last change" field with the date six or twelve months ago.

Hope this helps! Drop me a note at my talk page, and/or an email, if I can explain further, I'm still on a work trip, but hope to be back at it soon. Thanks! --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfC

Hi Anne. I apologise if I appear to be bombarding you with a lot of questions about AfC. Because I have been so heavily involved for several years on other aspects of new articles and new users, I had too much on my plate to get involved very much with the AfC process. Now that I have bit more time my main concerns are the quality of AfC reviewing and the backlog, so I'm just getting up to speed. Thanks for all your helpful answers :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's what the talk page is for. If I didn't have time to answer someone else would. I was working at the New Page Patrol for a while, and I can tell you that on the average the submissions we get at Afc are far more wild and woolly than the usual stuff over at NPP. You really don't want some of those out in mainspace. At least the editors you get there have read enough of the instructions to figure out how to create a new page. Sometimes we have editors dumping their article text on the help pages, or on the reviewers' talk pages, and about one article in four is a copyright violation. It's amazing to me how many of these new editors get their act together and write a good article by the end of the process. Our main problem is the backlog, and I guess that's a problem everywhere. —Anne Delong (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seeqnce, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Accelerator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Backup drive

Dear Excirial: I would like to take part in the backup drive taking place in a few days. I clicked on the backup drive tab, and was directed to your AfcBuddy page to sign up. However, I couldn't see anything about the July drive. Is this because I have to wait until July 1 to sign up? And by the way, thanks for making the AfcBuddy. I tried to list my own last time and it wasn't worth the time it took. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of a header for the new drive was mostly caused by me not being aware there would be a new drive (The last two months i haven't exactly been the shining example of active editing). The header is up and ready for sign-ups now though. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 07:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Excirial. I have signed up, I think. Hopefully I will not be the only one! —Anne Delong (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July

Your submission at Articles for creation

Britannia Mine Museum, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

– GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/High-Probabilty Request Sequence.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		Hiya Anne the one sean here, from AfC. I was ~~looking at~~ stalking your talk page when I came upon some of your detailed and thorough replies to the queries of new editors. I wanted to recognize the time you take to write good, complete answers to the new users' questions. It's above and beyond the call of duty. You are awesome, the one sean 03:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Audie Info Article Declined

Morning Anne,

I'm new to Wiki so thank you very much for taking the time to check my terrible first article attempt and for pointing me in the right direction. I will continue to edit the article, apply your advise, and add better references.

If I get stuck, would it be ok if I harassed you a bit ?

Thanks again,

Kate Audie Info (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC) 2013.07.02 @ 07:16[reply]

Dear Audie Info: Sure, you can ask me for help any time. However, since I am not always on line, you can also ask questions at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, where there's always someone watching for new questions from beginning editors.

Here are some tips to start off with:

When you are talking about an article, be sure to mention the name of the article, so the other person won't have to go searching around to find it.
I see that you have removed the pink decline box from the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Audie Steel & Engineering article. In future, you should leave the boxes like that at the top of the article. They let the article reviewers know that the article has been declined, and for what reason, and then when you submit it again they will check to see if that aspect of the article has been improved. When the article is accepted, any items like that are automatically deleted.
Be aware that each editor in Wikipedia must act as an individual, not as a representative of a company. Because of this, none of any company's advertising or information resources can be used on the page, for legal copyright reasons. An exception is the company logo, which apparently can be used to represent the company under "fair use", but only on the page about the company, not in other articles. That means that those spec sheets on the Audie page will have to go. You can put a short general description of the products in the article (in your own words) and then include a link at the bottom of the page to the company web page where the details can be found. When you think about it, it makes more sense anyway. Since anyone in the world can change a Wikipedia article, Audie customers shouldn't be depending on it for specific information which is likely more up-to-date on the company web site. Here's a manufacturing company article to use as an example: Bombardier Aerospace.

I hope this helps. Good luck with your article. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and questions left on another page for you

Hi Anne. Thank you for your comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/thoughtform_thought-form_ThoughtForms_(disambiguation). I wasn't sure if you were monitoring that page so I'm placing this message on your talk page. (I'm new to all this, so my apologies in advance if this is not the proper protocol). As you will see, I think your comment was fair and I certainly appreciate the hard work you are putting into wikipedia. I did have a few questions for you at that page if you have the time. Thank you. [[User:Peter Baum|Peter Baum].] (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Peter Baum. I read your message. Probably either your talk page or mine would have been a better place to put it, but since the article has been declined no one else will probably be looking at it for some time. I found this wiki which may be what you are looking for: [[2]]. If it isn't, I suggest you ask at Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia:Reference desk, and likely someone there will know the answer to your question. I hope that you will continue to use your knowledge to improve Wikipedia articles. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Earnings Call Transcript

Hi Anne,

I submitted the article "Earnings Call Transcript" for review dated July 2, 2013. I appreciate the suggestions provided by you to add more reference sources and valuable feedback. It would be helpful if you could provide any expected numbers for references and help out on the kind of references that would suit and add value to article, that I could source them and incorporate them for resubmission?

Best Regards, SamXtal.SamXtal (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear [User:SamXtal|SamXtal]]: It is difficult to specify an exact number of references, because it depends on how extensive the information in the references is. The main thing is that the references must be independent (that is, not written by or for any person or organization that may be mentioned), reliable and published (not somebody's personal blog, for example), and that they specifically confirm the information. Not being a business person, the only things that come to my mind are business journals and economics textbooks, or maybe published government documents that specify guidelines for company activities. It also depends on how much information is in the article. A long article will have more facts to be supported than a short one.

Before you do that, though, I have noticed that most of your article is not actually about the earnings call transcripts. Is that because it's a simple concept and there isn't much to say about it? Wikipedia already has an article called Earnings call, which is in danger of being deleted because it doesn't have proper source citations. In my opinion (remembering that I am not a business person), you should do one of two things:

Use the information in your article about the earnings call and its format to improve the Earnings call article and find at least a couple of reliable sources to add to it so that other editors can see that someone is working on it and won't delete it. Then shorten your "Earnings call transcript" article so that it is just about the transcripts, telling how and why they are made, who uses them, etc., and link in the first sentence to Earnings call for those who want to know more about them.
Improve the Earnings call article as suggested above, and then make a new section at the bottom about the transcripts and add your info about them thee (with references), and don't make a new article at all.

In either case, unless I am misunderstanding, the information at the bottom of your article about other calls doesn't seem to be about earnings calls and doesn't belong in the article about them. Are you describing the activities of a certain kind of business, perhaps Real Team Systems Pvt. Ltd., that transcribes various types of calls? If so, perhaps you need a more general topic, such as "business call transcript" or whatever is appropriate.

Also, keep in mind that your article should be written for the general public, not just for business experts. Rather than "form 654-Tx" or some such thing, which refer only to a specific situation, it is better to say something like "Many governments, including ___, require companies to complete forms declaring ___ in order to ___ and the transcripts provide valuable ____ which can be used to ___".

Keep in mind once more that my business experience is limited to one economics course and for a time running a small business out of my house, where hopefully no one was transcribing my calls. I hope this is helpful, but if you would like another perhaps more informed opinion, you could ask at the Teahouse. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Wizard

Since my canvass on WT:AFC didn't work too well so far, I figured I might ask a few editors very involved in the project for help -

I'm (trying) to work on a redo of the Article Wizard, the current one is old, clunky, and not very efficient. There's a few tools that can be used to do this, namely mw:GuidedTour, which could help (with some funky buttons and stuff) it look like Special:GettingStarted. Other ideas include just making it look nicer, etc.

If you'd like to help, just ping me here (I'll watch this page) or on IRC (nick=Charmlet) for more info :) I'd appreciate it! Thanks ~Charmlet ^-talk- 02:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Charmlet, I am still sulking because no one would help test the work that Writ Keeper did on my proposal to encourage new editors to add references to their articles. (Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 113#Proposed change to the Afc submission process) which was started back in April with a proper proposal, Rfc and consensus. I'm too frustrated at seeing it sit there unimplemented while other things are being done that don't seem to have needed consensus. Normally I would help, but my sense of fairness has taken a beating. By the way, I think that the reason that you didn't get a big response was that your request coincided with the opening of the backlog drive at Afc. The backlog is down to almost half of what it was last week. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. By the way, if that's what I *think* it is, I totally supported it. I just didn't get the chance to work with you on it. If you need a testing ground for code and stuff, you can use the deployment cluster replicate of enwp. I'll be glad to try to heplp get some code worked together for the Article Wizard and/or your thing if I can. It almost sounds like the GuidedTour may help with reference issues too, if it's worked right (not completely sure of all the features yet :p). Thanks ~Charmlet ^-talk- 03:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my page?

Why did you delete my page [Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ORTEC]? What copywrite information was present? Can you please explain?

Kendra Haste

Hello Anne, Regarding article that I am writing and which you have rejected on copyright grounds. I'd be grateful if you could advise me why as I am new to this. All the words are my own taken from previous articles and her website - which I wrote.

Copyright issues - reply

Dear editors: Neither of you have signed your posts, so I don't know your names, but you both have the same question. The ORTEC article had extensive text copied and pasted from the ORTEC web site, and the Kendra Haste article had text copied from her web site and from other sources. Wikipedia cannot accept text that is published elsewhere for copyright reasons, even if the text was originally written by the same person. People who edit Wikipedia must do so as individuals, and not as representatives of companies, so they can't make use of any text which has been written for the company (which in any case is almost always too promotional for an encyclopedia article). Similarly, someone who is acting as a representative of a public personality such as an author, musician, actor, etc., can't use text which was written for that person's use, say on their web site or in press releases. Also text which has been published in other places such as magazines or newspapers is copyright and can't be used, no matter who originally wrote it. At any rate, Wikipedia is a publication (a very large one), not a web hosting service, so including text that is posted elsewhere on the web is not appropriate. Imagine if you went to a book or magazine publisher and asked them to publish a book with the exact same text that you had used in your last book!

Both of these topics appear worthy of an article, so, please, I hope you will each write an article about your topic, using Wikipedia:Manual of Style as your guide, in sentences which are specially created for the encyclopedia, in a neutral tone rather than a promotion, and then submit it again. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC) (I have figured out that ORTEC question was from Shyamutty and the Kendra Haste question was from Patrickgdavies. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Michaels

Hi Anne,

My article on Jess Michaels was deleted and I'm trying to get it back to edit it and clean it up. Can you help me get it back? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jess Michaels I linked directly to the author page as the source, I'm happy to remove that and re-work it. I see I need to get more feedback from editors before submitting an article.

Thanks in Advance,

Fredsbro (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fredsbro: Your article was deleted by User talk:RHaworth. You could ask this editor for a copy of your text so that you could rewrite it. I see that is was marked as spam, which probably means you will need to make it more neutral and not promotional. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

High-probability request sequence, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MartinPoulter (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My respect for you

Anne, I am sorry if the comment I made at the Teahouse or on my talk page made you feel bad in any way. From all that I have seen, you are an outstanding editor and a real asset to this great project. I remember you coming to the Teahouse in your early days of contributing here, and I have been very pleased that you have stuck around, gained your confidence and made real, valuable contributions. Please accept my apologies if I've hurt your feelings. - Jim Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jim Cullen³²⁸: Don't worry about me, I wasn't feeling hurt, just concerned that the Teahouse hosts would not like the Afc dirty laundry played out for the new editors. I do find it frustrating that in every conversation about the Afc there are those who think we are too lenient and those who are annoyed because we decline too many articles. —Anne Delong (talk) 07:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Anne. I understand your frustrations, but I imagine that there are some things to be learned from both critiques. I wish I had the time to delve into it, but my hours for participation are limited, and I do like to write a new article occasionally. I see very little evidence that your team declines too many articles, and when I see appeals at the Teahouse, the declined articles almost always have major problems. I think I did take exception to one decline a few weeks back, but that's the exception that proves the rule, perheps. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aviation Safety Action Program: Revision history

This is not copyvio, because the site is a US government site., and the text on such sites is US-PD -- not that's it;'s a satisfactory article yet 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, 'DGG (at NYPL). Is there a Wikipedia page that has information about which government documents from which countries are okay to use? Also, since the editor must act as an individual according to Wikipedia policy, should he or she have a direct attribution, in the way the Wikipedia requires of others? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, it's mainly the US. (and some US states, notably California.) It does not include Canada or the UK. Where you'll see it used most frequently in WP is our US military bios. The problem of attribution you mention is real-- WP has in the past frequently used a general attribution, such as a footnote to the source, or an page notice like: "This article contains.. ". (which unfortunately doesnt say just what part of it is taken from the PD source).

Current best practice is to indicate the exact part quoted . One way to do it is to write an introductory sentence or two, and then use it as a block quotation. Another is to use multiparagraph quotation marks in the std academic way

"This first paragraph "Second pragraph "Third paragraph" Where each paragraph begins with a quotation mark, but an ending one is used only at the end of the quoted material.

I got your message about our submitted page for C Ronald Kahn. According to you, someone else is creating a page called Carl Ronald Kahn. Is there any way to get in touch with whoever is doing this? I am Dr. Kahn's official biographer and I don't want anyone else trying to post sub-standard information about this important person. Thanks. Joslin735

Your submission at Articles for creation

Atlantic Salmon Conservation Foundation, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

the one sean 15:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Garden Walk buffalo.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! APerson (talk!) 23:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Garden Walk buffalo, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

(chat) techatology 02:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help editing?

Hi Anne,

You recently reviewed an article I wrote about Dr. Susan Pick and suggested that I make better, more reliable references to prove her notability as well as remove some of the elements that were based a bit more in social commentary rather than the dates and facts about her life and accomplishments. I have gone back and edited in a way that I thought was suitable, but, before resubmitting it, I wanted to ensure that these edits were suitable for Wikipedia. I'm new to Wikipedia and don't know if this is the correct space to ask for this kind of assistance, but I'd really appreciate it if you could see my corrections and give me more feedback (positive or negative) so that I avoid further rejection. The link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Susan_Pick

Thank you!

Mereditharra (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mereditharra: I will be leaving the next review of your article to someone else, but I can give you a couple of tips:

1) The lead paragraph should be a summary. Right now it just has one item, a red-linked organization. The name of the organization should come first, then the acronym. You should add to this paragraph, maybe that she is a Mexican (political scientist? social psychologist? I can't tell), and also if she is a professor that should be mentioned there too.

2) Is the Autonomous University different from the National Autonomous University?

3) There is still too much promotion of ideas and theories. This article should just be actual facts, no "suspicions" and "suggestions": She founded an organization with this purpose, she wrote a book on this topic, she worked at this University in this capacity, etc. Explanations of theories should be in an article about the specific theory, details about a book should be in an article about the book (provided that it is notable). For example Amartya Sen has his own article, so it's not necessary to explain his theory, just link his name to his Wikipedia page.

4) You have a lot of references, but they are mostly just URLs. Eventually all of these will have to be properly formatted in the way that the first one on the list is done. Before submitting the article for review, at least pick out several of the independent book reviews, news articles, etc., and format them properly so that the reviewer can see that they are written by journalists or other independent authors are in publications with editorial oversight.

I hope this helps. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog Drive

I've been participating in the backlog drive and am attempting to get my totals to show up on the page, but think I've messed something up. Is there something I need to do other than what I have on the sign-up section? The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80. I see that you have made yourself a blank drive page; that's good. You should leave a note on Excirial's talk page. He updates the pages manually, and he may not have your name on his update list yet. He's been updating every day or two, so then you will have to wait until his next update to see any change. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Anne! I left a note for him.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IRC office hours for wiki-mentors and Snuggle users

Hi. We're organizing an office hours session with the Teahouse to bring in mentors from across the wiki to try out Snuggle and discuss it's potential to support mentorship broadly. The Snuggle team would appreciate it if you would come and participate in the discussion. We'll be having it in #wikimedia-office ^connect on Wed. July 17th @ 1600 UTC. See the agenda for more info. --EpochFail^{(talk • work)}, Technical 13 (talk), TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

save the Banjo Newsletter Wikipedia page

Hi Anne, Thank you for the work you are doing for bluegrass music at Wikipedia. I'm not sure if this is the correct forum to use to contact you. The BNL page is in danger of deletion. If you are able to contribute to the page and remove the objectionable material, you will be continuing to help the presence of bluegrass music at Wikipedia. I was not able to meet the guidelines for submitting material though I interviewed the magazine's owners directly. Your work will be much appreciated. Thanks, Tom. E19S24cr (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear E19S24cr: Mission accomplished - the user who added the tags agreed that they could now be removed. Unfortunately, interviewing the subject is considered "original research" and Wikipedia is only a summary of already published material. However, I managed to find written sources for most of the information, and I did some reorganization to de-emphasize the commercial aspects. If you enjoy improving bluegrass articles, feel free to make comments or suggestions on the Bluegrass Topics talk page or add some articles needing improvement to my list at User:Anne Delong/Bluegrass Topics. Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfC

FYI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thanks for accepting my article on Savannah Phillips. have a nice day.

Debrafir (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAC comment

Thanks for your edit to Channel Orange. I worked a while getting it to GA. If it's no bother, would you like to comment/vote at my nomination for FA here? It's a relatively short article to review. Dan56 (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Dan56, thanks for asking, but I don't feel qualified to comment on that. Most of my experience is with the Afc - we are just trying to get the beginner articles good enough not to be deleted. I came to your article because I just approved Jeff Ellis (recording engineer) and I needed a link so that it wouldn't be an orphan. I'm a Bluegrass fan myself... —Anne Delong (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfC

Hi Anne, There is a question at the teahouse that would benefit from your perspective if you have time. Flat Out let's discuss it 13:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Anne Delong (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/He_Jiahong

Hi Anne, thanks for the helpful tips, i have made the changes that you suggested. I really appreciate your help with this. I haven't resubmitted the article yet, just sending to you as requested. Thanks again. Michaelleach 16/07/13Michaelleach (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the article is accepted. If the subject is mentioned in any other Wikipedia articles, you should edit them and add a link to this article - for example, the university might have an article. Good luck. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks Anne, would never have got this article live without you! Michaelleach (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creation and acceptance of new articles

Dear Anne I stumbled across the proposed article on Renana Peres and was left flabbergasted that here an article is put through proper quality assessment criteria, whereas elsewhere pages are being added willy-nilly. I would appreciate if you could spare a minute to have a look at an article recently created that I proposed for deletion just so I can see what someone with your level of assessment makes of it. You can find the article here. I should add that a lot of work has been added since it was nominated for deletion. I would be most grateful. Best regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made a comment at the Afd. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charles Segal (musician)

Hi Anne, you marked the submission as "under review" yesterday, did some work on it and then... nothing! Have you forgotten about this one? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that most of the references were not independent, so I was adding URLs to see if there was enough to pass notability. I expected it to take some time. Then I got a message about another submission that I had promised to accept if certain changes were made, and by the time I had dealt with that one I was in a hurry to leave home to go to a gig. I forgot about Charles (playing blues trumps Wikipedia...) Have you seen the research that shows that as soon as you pass through a doorway you forget what you were doing in the previous room? Then sleep intervened. I would have got back to it this morning, but I see that it's been accepted now. Looks like maybe it could have used a little more work... Thank you for asking instead of just ignoring the review hold - I appreciate that. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Techweek Capitalization

The Techweek (conference) page should have no capital 'w' in the title. The company doesn't capitalize the w anywhere that I can find. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robsefer (talk • contribs) 19:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okaay, Robsefer, I have fixed it. (Don't forget to sign your posts!) —Anne Delong (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 05:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/July 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive/Minna Sora no Shita - seeing a lot of "fail"

I'm sorry for the mistakes that I've been making. I'm quite new to the AfC reviewing, especially the fact that I'm on summer vacation from school and kind of in need of something. It's only one week since I've been reviewing AfC, so I have to acknowledge that. Sometimes I go a bit too fast...so is there any tips for me to improve my skills and get more "pass" reviews? --みんな空の下 (トーク) 20:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Minna Sora no Shita: I am sorry that I have not replied to your post until now. I have been away at a festival and had no access to the Internet. I guess my advice to you would be (1) Make sure that you have read the reviewing instructions, taking note of the "quickfail" reasons which take precedence over the others. (2) Always check the source code to make sure that the beginning editors haven't included material that is invisible because of bad formatting. (3) If the text seems to be well written, and particularly if it's promotional, put a couple of sentences into Google search to see if it's a copyright violation. (4) Remember that we are here to help the new editors, not block them, so if you have time and the knowledge to help get a page in shape, for example by fixing up format errors, go ahead (5) Lastly, if you aren't sure about a certain review, ask for help or a second opinion at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation talk page. That's what I did when I started reviewing and I got lots of good advice. I hope this helps, and good luck with your editing. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Dear Anne Delong,

    Thank you for making some changes to the cylinder fuse page. I submitted the changes.

Sincerely, Jbuehle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbuehle (talk • contribs) 17:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mobiveil article

Dear Anne,

Thank you for reviewing the post. The suggested edits and additional references will be made to get the article posted.

The reference link where you have mentioned that couple of links don't talk about Mobiveil: Those were added to trace back the story of formation of Mobiveil and the executives' background. I took that as a cue from other companies listing history of formation.

Thanks for suggesting icicitrinity as a good source. I would also urge you to consider SEC filings and the few more links under External links. These can't be directly referenced in the content but have just been included to provide an authentic reference that the company exists and is acknowledged by neutral entities.

Please advice how many links should I share to get the article approved.

Thanks again for taking time out to review.

Regards,

Mg.Chakravarthi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mg.chakravarthi (talk • contribs) 17:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mg.chakravarthi: It is okay to have those other references that don't mention Mobiveil, to support specific information as you have noted. It would be better to make citations and add these next to the specific information to which they relate (see Help:Referencing for beginners). However, Wikipedia requires as well sources which have information specifically about the subject, in this case Mobiveil. It is hard to say exactly how many, because it depends on in what depth each one covers the subject. Probably two more with several paragraphs of information would be okay (about Mobiveil), or more if each one has only one paragraph - I am estimating, because each subject and each source is different. The main thing is to have a neutral and rounded picture of the company.

About external links: The main thing to remember is that Wikipedia is not to be used to promote a business, but only to provide information. Links to sites that are intended to promote sales or investment, other than one to the company web site, may be considered to be promotional. You would probably be a better judge of that than I, since I am not a business person. Don't forget that once the article is published in the encyclopedia, other editors will be adding to and changing it. Good luck with your article. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Holcombe

hey there. I was kinda shocked that WP doesn't have an article on Wendy Holcombe. I copied some stuff in my sandbox, but it's all probably unusable copyvio in its present form. I have neither the time nor the energy to write an article any more, but someone should make a place for Little Wendy. She was the real thing. • Serviceable†Villain 07:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Serviceable: I had to remove the copyright text from your sandbox. However, since you said that you didn't want to write the article yourself, I have started a page at User:Anne Delong/Wendy Lou Holcombe and copied over the references that I found on your page and at the BHAMwiki page. I don't have time to work on it right away, especially since the sources you found were all second hand or anonymous. Several published sources such as news reports, magazine articles or reviews will need to be found. Feel free to add any of these if you find them. Also feel free to contribute to User:Anne Delong/Bluegrass Topics or User talk:Anne Delong/Bluegrass Topics. I will see if I can get to this in a couple of weeks. —Anne Delong (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Call me Ling. Sorry, I cannot help with this or any other task or project. I was just... I remember watching her on TV. She was awesome. :-) Good luck with your Blue Grass WikiProject. • Serviceable†Villain 10:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your defense of AfC

Thank you for taking the time to write your response at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WikiProject Articles for creation Threatens to Ruin Wikipedia. Your careful analysis of what you see when you are working on AfC articles, and your calm analysis of the person who raised the issue really help. You've chosen to work in a difficult, often tedious, area and many, many of us appreciate it. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I may have been less calm than I seemed... —Anne Delong (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For all your hard work at AfC for defending the encyclopedia against not only unwanted content, but also defending new users against inappropriate rejections. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] Seconded. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, and it's great to have you taking the time to point out problems to that we can deal with them. There's so much to do at Afc that every pair of eyes helps. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Grass...hmmmmmmm

I have noted your interest in Bkue Grass. Do you have any data on a man named Orville Jenks??? I believe he is one of the original folks who sang, Sprinkle Coal Dust on My GraveCoal town guy (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know anything about him, but you can always use Google; it appears to have plenty of entries about him. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles_for_creation/How_It_Should_Have_Ended

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/How_It_Should_Have_Ended Hey thanks for your advice, I have added some reviews and links. Kindly, check them and further help me. Thank you again. Sudhansu94 (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your lots of efforts, this was my first wiki page. Sudhansu94 (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Goosby article

Hello Anne, Thank you for informing me that my proposed article about Councilwoman Dorothy Goosby is about to be deleted. In fact, I was not aware that it was still in the pipeline. In my last conversation with a Wikipedia editor, I was made aware of the reasons why my article could not be accepted, and I understood. I thought the article would automatically be deleted at that time. I appreciate your effort on my behalf. -Michael Weingarten — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.213.148 (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at Aggie80's talk page.
Message added 01:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

The Lodge (Mastering), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Andrew³²⁷ 14:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at Arctic Kangaroo's talk page.
Message added 15:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Beth Ardi

Hi Anne - you left a comment about the proper use of titles on the article I submitted on Dana Beth Ardi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dr._Dana_Ardi - I got rid of the "Dr." everyhere except in the opening paragraph, but it's still in the title. Should I move and retitle the article, or is that something that would be done in a general cleanup by an AfC reviewer? Thanks! JSFarman (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, JSFarman, the title has to be changed anyway to get rid of the words in front, so it will be fixed then. Usually in Wikipedia articles the person is called by their full name at the beginning, any titles are describled, and then after that the person is just called by their last name. This gets rid of any arguments about who is entitled to be called by what title, and shortens the article. First names are usually only used if the article would be confusing because it mentions several people with the same last name. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic Systems

Hi, Thank you for your advice, I will re-write my article in sentence and paragraphs form! Concerning the sources, all my sources are from newspapers, magazines and reports. They are all independant, what am I supposed to change about it? Thank you for your help again!--Mmarraas (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Mmarraas, I didn't look at the sources, since another reviewer had done that. I just noted it as a reminder. However, since you ask, I have gone through them and here is my analysis:

1) Good source - I added some detail; people outside Belgium wouldn't know what RTBF was. 2) This looks like a business listing web site; not considered independent? 3) Good source - One sentence about AS. Tthe article title you gave it was incorrect and somewhat misleading, so I changed it. 4) If Automatic Systems is part of this larger company, this isn't an independent source. 5) Okay source Bold text– although it looks like AS is a member of this organization, it's likely that so is every business in the area, so if they have been selected for an award that's legit 6) Good source, good article; I fixed the title. 7) This sure reads like a press release, and the web site invites suppliers to submit them, and the site doesn't attribute its material to anyone in particular. 8) Another association of which the company is a member

I hope this helps. As you can see, some of the sources weren't totally independent. It's all right to have these dependent sources there, to back up non-controversial details. The result is a bit marginal. Can you find one more news or magazine source to push it over the top? —Anne Delong (talk)

Dear Anne, thank you very much for your help! I removed the wrong sources and added a new one that I found in a specialist magazine. I hope it will be ok this time, Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmarraas (talk • contribs) 07:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. The submission has not been accepted because it included copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

Hello Anne, This is my first time on creating articles on Wikipedia. The article created was all written by me which is also available on the official website of 'Speak Kuwaiti' book. As the author of this new book, all the text written belongs to me. How can I repost the article for Wikipedia to accept it?

K. Ahmad Ali — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kam965 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The existing submission may be deleted at any time. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.

If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! —Anne Delong (talk) 07:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kam965: I presuming that the article of which you are speaking is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Speak Kuwaiti, which has now been deleted. The problem is that once text has been published elsewhere, it is considered copyright. If you own the copyright (which could be the case if the book is self-published) you can donate the text to Wikipedia. The instructions are on this page: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Then anyone in the world could use or change it. You may not want that. Also, it is usually useless, because the text on your web site is designed to promote sales of the book, and is not suitable for Wikipedia. Products can't be promoted on Wikipedia. Also, remember that Wikipedia is a publication (a very large one!). Why would Wikipedia want to include a copy of something that's already published? You wouldn't do that in your own book, I'm sure. That's why its usually better to have someone neutral write about subjects on Wikipedia. Someone who has written a book will have trouble viewing it in a neutral way. If you want to try, please rewrite the text so that is has just the facts and is written just for Wikipedia. I know this is not what you wanted to hear, but I hope it clarifies the situation. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rotary Guatemala

Hi Anny, this was my first attempt at an article and I am already frustrated. I am a Rotarian in Guatemala and wondered what would come up when somebody would want to find out about our organization. So, when I typed ¨Rotary Guatemala¨ as search words, the first option I was offered was an article about a guy by the name of Edmund Baroch who happens to be a friend but which had very little to do with what Rotary does in Guatemala and how it is organized. So I thought that something more to the point could help, and wrote the small article. Now, I am being told that copyrighted work was included and I wonder which part you refer to, so I can delete that part and rewrite it. Next, I am told that I need to put references to the statements from outside of the Rotary organization. Frankly, I don´t know where to look for them, and secondly, this information is factual and corresponds to the real situation of how Rotary is organized in this part of the world. Best regards, Michael Bostelmann, Michael (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Michael: I am sorry that I have not replied earlier to your message. You added it in between two messages from back in June, and it was not until someone else accidentally did the same thing that I happened to read it. Okay, to answer your question: Wikipedia does not accept personal knowledge unless it is backed up by published sources. Otherwise it would be like facebook. If the Rotary organization in Guatemala is "notable", then it will have been involved in activities that are reported in the newspapers, or magazines, or books. If the Rotarians just meet and chat among themselves (unlikely) then there's no need for a Wikipedia article. The sources don't have to be in English, since we have translation programs and also Wikipedians speak many languages. I'm sure that your information is true, but confirmation of the information and of notable activities is important. That way when the article is published and someone tries to change it in a way that you think is incorrect, you will have something to support your facts. So dig out your old newspaper clippings, and see what you can come up with! If you are stuck, try asking for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guatemala or check other pages about Rotary in other parts of the world and ask the editors you find in the article history if they have any ideas. I hope this helps and that you will continue to work on the article. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help with editing a locked page

Hello Anne, thank you for taking a look at my page "Carl Ronald Kahn". As stated in your message, this was a duplicate submission. I submitted the original under the account "JoslinCommunications". The JoslinCommunications account is locked due to issues with the name, which means I can not edit the original submission. I would very much like to make your edits and then resubmit this page, but I am at a loss with how to proceed. Can you please advise me how to resubmit this page or how to unlock my other account?

Thanks in advance, Emily

Joslin735 (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Emily: Unfortunately, in between the time that I left the message and today, the older article was deleted, so I guess you should continue to work on this one Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carl Ronald Kahn (2). For future information, anyone can work on any article, so even if you had to change your username, you could still have typed the name of the original article into the search engine and continued to edit it.

Mr. Kahn is obviously a noted biologist. Here are some comments that should help to get the article accepted:

The article as it is written may be acceptable in a biology journal, but it is pretty incomprehensible for the average person. Can you simplify it so that an educated non-biologist can understand it, and leave out any detail that only people in his specific field would need to know? They probably do.

There are a lot of citations to sources that have been written by the subject. This is considered promotional; I'm sure a list of his publications is on his resume or profile somewhere, and a link to that at the bottom of the article is all that's needed. What should be included instead are sources in which other writers discuss him or his work - news or medical journal reports of his work, news reports of his awards, books about the subject of his research written by someone else that tell of his role, that sort of thing. The idea is to give a rounded view of his life and work, rather than an exhaustive listing.

Be careful to maintain a neutral tone.

I hope this helps. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

You posted the declining of an AfC on my talk page but I simply pressed the submit button for another user who had created the draft then moved it to article space himself. I've moved your post over to his page for reference at User talk:DanielAmzallag. This is just an FYI message. Cheers, Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cabe. In the future, to prevent this problem, if you want to submit for someone else, instead of pressing the button you could add: {{subst:submit|user=Author's Username}} and insert the author's name, or, after you press the button, edit the page and change the user in the submit template to the appropriate person. This will save you from having to fix up misplaced notices later on. I know this because I did the same thing and sent myself several copyright violation notices! —Anne Delong (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, noted for future reference, thanks! Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Making an AfC submission

Anne -- I'm trying to find out how to make an article in my sandbox into an AfC article submission. I posted on the AfC help desk but haven't received a response. Can you give me some instruction? My article isn't finished (I'm working on it in microsoft word), but I want to make sure I'll be able to submit it when I'm done. Thanks. Evelenfiftyseven (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I figured it out. Evelenfiftyseven (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since I had written my response, I may as well post it:

Dear Evelenfiftyseven: When you are ready to submit your article, add this line at the top: {{subst:submit|user=Evelenfiftyseven}} and then save the page. That will alert the reviewers that you are ready for a review, and someone will come along and move the article into the Afc area. How long depends on the number of submissions waiting at the time. Before you do that, make sure that you have included references to independent sources, such as news reports, magazine articles, reviews, books, etc, and be sure that the article is written in a neutral encyclopedic tone. If you get stuck you can leave me a message or visit the Teahouse for help. Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Anne! I think I submitted it correctly. I spent several days researching this topic and preparing the content. Hopefully a reviewer can add/edit/improve and get it listed as an article. Cheers! Evelenfiftyseven (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page declined

Hello Re your message..Hello! Tassie Wombat, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined Can you please tell me why? What did I not do?Tassie Wombat (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tassie Wombat: As I wrote in my comment on the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gemmological Association of Australia. Tasmania Division page, to have an article in Wikipedia a topic has to be notable. This means that it has to be written about in news reports, magazine articles or books that are not written by members of the organization, but by journalists and other authors. None of the references that you supplied were about the Tasmanian division. I suggested that you take the information that you have gathered and instead write it in the Gemmological Association of Australia article, because it is in bad shape and needs more references. The alternative is to find some news reports, etc., that ARE about the Tasmanian division. I hope this helps. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anne,

It was very helpful and kind of you to offer such a prompt reply to our question about what to do about making a new contribution to Wikipedia. We post the question to the Tea Room on July 25 about requesting what to do about the contribution and the need for outside review of the contribution "Lao Veterans of America" It still seems that no independent person has reviewed it for final publication, but your prompt response was very helpful and appreciated.

Thank you for your important work and helping to educated new users and contributors to Wikipedia. We really appreciate it and are sorry for the delay in thanking you.

We would like to make more contributions to Wikipedia and it is encouraging to hear from people like you.

Sincerely,

Publico2020 (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anne we have members of The association looking for articles so hopefully we can find some and re visit

Tassie WombatTassie Wombat (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Algeco Scotsman entry question

Hello Anne,

I submitted an entry on Algeco Scotsman for review. I'm new to Wikipedia, so it took me a while to figure out how to create, edit and submit, but I finally did it. I received a message that it was rejected but when I searched to find out why, I saw a note that said blank submissions are not accepted. The entry wasn't blank, but I fear I may have done something incorrectly when I submitted it that hid the contents. Now I'm unable to find the draft submission anywhere. I'd hate to think I have to start from scratch since it took me so long to input etc. I tried looking in my history but nothing showed up. I hope you can help me!

Thank you, Lisa Lgtrapani (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lisa: I think I may have bad news for you. I have looked at your contributions (you can see them by clicking on "Contributions" at the top right side of the page, and you will see this), and as far as I can see, you sent only a blank page for review. You can click on the very first version of the article. It's hard to imagine what may have happened. Were you logged into the same account when you typed the article? If so, then somehow you must not have saved your text. Did you work on your article, saving it as you went along from time to time, or did you type the whole thing and just save it at the end? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anne,

I saved as I went along and also viewed previews along the way. So there's no way to look at a history of drafts I was editing? I was able to go back and edit my drafts before I submitted, so I assume it was saved somewhere...

Lisa Lgtrapani (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lisa: When you click on the Show Preview button, your work is not saved, only when you press the Save button. When you look at the preview, you will see the following at the top of the page:

This is only a preview; your changes have not yet been saved! in red letters, and when you try to leave the page without saving, it will ask you if you are sure that you want to leave. Until you click on the Save button, the text is just in your browser, and doesn't go from your computer to the Wikipedia server.

The submit of the blank page was the very first edit that you made under the name Lgtrapani. I have even checked to see if any edit that you made was deleted, and there were none. So the only hope for the text to still exist is if you had been using another login at the time. I am sorry, but I don't think there is anything to be done about it. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miss International

Anne Delong, thank you very much that is very clear. I will do just that. In addition, how do I request a new article on the sister pageant which is just as notable. Please advise. I am very new as you can see to wikipedia and it is so much to learn, but I want to learn. So I will go back and make mention of the sister pageant on the Miss International Page, and request a separate article or venture to write it myself. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsilintl2004 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Delong,

Thank you very much for your help. I am very new to Wikipedia as you can see and there is a lot to learn. I am willing to learn though. Your explanation was very clear and so I will do just that. I will also add that there is a sister pageant and the name of the sister pageant. How do I request a separate article be written about the sister pageant as it is just as notable. As a matter of fact, Bob Eubanks, former host of the newly wed game was the host of the pageant for years. I think it should have a separate article. I mentioned that in the notes. Please advise as you have been very helpful. Thank you.Mrsilintl2004 (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you work on the Miss International article, improve it, being sure to add references to back up your changes, and discuss the changes with other editors on the talk page, after a while it will be a really good article. By the time this happens, you should have a good idea of how to make the other article yourself, since it should be similar. Then if you can't figure out how to get the page started, you can ask me or ask at the WP:Teahouse:Teahouse and someone will help you. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block from editing request

Anne, would it be possible to block this IP address (206.194.127.112) from making edits. This is a business computer and, while I have occasionally used it to correct minor issues in articles (such as misspellings), it should not be being used for article creation or major edits and especially not for vandalism. If you wish to contact me use my talk page divingpetrel 206.194.127.112 (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear divingpetrel : IP addresses often change from time to time, unless your business computer has arranged with its service provider for a fixed IP address. If this is your business, you may know. If the IP is fixed to one computer, blocking it will prevent your computer being used for vandalism unless the person creates a login and password. If it is not fixed, you may just be blocking other random people who are using other computers elsewhere. Please check out the contributions of this IP by clicking HERE. If the constructive edits are all yours, and you are sure that the others are being made by someone using the same computer when you are not there, you can make your request for blocking at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The administrators there will decide whether to block the IP address (I don't have the authority to do it). —Anne Delong (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Divingpetrel (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you!

I'm new to reviewing articles for AfC, and I keep coming across articles that you've previously reviewed - I'm inspired by the thoroughness of your reviews and the thoughtfulness of your comments. JSFarman (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JSFarman, I just keep thinking about how each article has a hopeful person behind it who may become a regular Wikipedia contributor. If you need any help with your reviews, please feel free to ask me for help, or, if you prefer, ask at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation forum. I know that I asked dozens of questions there when I first started reviewing. Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Fitton

Hi Anne, I'm unsure how to use this 'talk' page, or how to respond to your message. You asked for me to confirm whether I'd wanted the article on Andrew Fitton artist to be submitted. I can confirm that I had intended for it to be submitted... I simply didn't know how to do it. Please could you advise me how to do so? Or give me any tips? thanks Rosie Oxley Impressions of Cardiff and Swansea User name ImpressionsCardiffandSwansea (daughter of Andrew fitton)

Hello, Rosie. I see that another editor has submitted it for you. Unfortunately, it has been declined because you didn't include references to independent sources, such as news reports, reviews, magazine articles, books, etc., in which journalists and other authors talk about his work. If you have newspaper clippings or other evidence that he is a notable artist, you should add references to them, (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) and then click on the "Resubmit" button at the top of the article. Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retire this account

Hello, I would like to retire this account and all content associated with it:

Joslin735 (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question for administrator

{{admin help}} The above appeared on my talk page here after I had tried to help a user who had made two versions of an article under two usernames. I'm not sure how to deal with this, so I am requesting that an admin take over. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see the user has had the account renamed, which may be enough, but I have given a message describing WP:CLEANSTART and WP:RTV, the two options if s/he wants more than that. JohnCD (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking procedure

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at WP:HD#blocking_an_IP_user.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Translating an article into English

Hi Anne,

I´ve found you on the teahouse page and would appreciate your guidance and advice. I`m quite a newby in editing. I would like to edit an english version of "my" article about an acapella vocal group Klangbezirk Klangbezirk

At first I´dont know how/where to start to translate an existing german article in order to contribute to the englisch wikipedia. I´ve read the German help pages but I did not find a satisfying answer, but warnings, that it would be difficult. I´ve heard about teahouse and that´s why I decided to look for a mentor there. Can you help me discovering the universe of wikipedia? Best regards --Manuela2012 (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Manuela2012. Well, here goes:

You should make sure that you have some reliable independent sources about your topic: news reports, reviews, magazine articles, etc. They don't have to be in English, but they need to discuss the topic substantially. I can tell you that the German article does not have enough; personal websites, blogs, announcements of upcoming performances don't count.
Create a page in the English encyclopedia to work on your article. You could call it User:Manuela2012/Klangbezirk. Just type that into the search box, and when it says "You may create the page", click on the name of the page. The edit window will open, with "Creating page" at the top.
Open a new tab on your browser. Copy the URL that you added above into a Google search box. You should see the German Wikipedia article on the list, with "translate this page" at the side. Click on "translate this page", and you should see the article in English, sort of.
Cut and paste any of the text that you want from the article to your new page and save the page. To get the infobox and the references you will have to edit the article and copy the source code for the box and the references onto your new page.
Save the new page. Now you have a draft article.
Fix up the article; the translation is only approximate.
When you think it is ready, add {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. This will tell the reviewers that you are ready to have the article checked over You may have to wait a few days if there are a lot of articles needing to be checked.

Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, what a surprise - I didn't expect an answer after having found that "retired" button at the end of your page. So thanks a lot for your detailed description - it is very helpful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuela2012 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article under construction

Hello,

The article i am editing at present in my sandbox looks like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amellondon/sandbox

Please could you review and could you kindly advise how the article formats in to Wikipedia layout ie: with a picture etc? is this something that's done once my article is finalised and ready to go live?

Regards Amellondon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amellondon (talk • contribs) 22:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I don't understand how to talk on your page, please advise, and thanks for the invite to the teahouse, look forward to being apart--Amellondon (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Amellondon: You have used the talk page the right way - you'll get used to it. Your article is not ready to go into the encyclopedia yet. First, only one of the sources listed looks like it may be a news story. All of the rest appear to be press releases, announcement, and material made by the person himself or organizations connected to him. What's needed to show that he is well known enough for an article in Wikipedia are several sources such as news reports, reviews (not blogs, wordpress, facebook, but in real publications), magazine articles, etc. that are written totally independently by journalists and other authors. Also, unfortunately because your first article is about a living person, Wikipedia requires "inline citations" to back up facts about the person (not surprisingly, people are annoyed when incorrect information is published about them). There is a help page that shows how to do this at wp:Referencing for beginners. If you get stuck you can ask me or the Teahouse hosts for help.

As soon as you have done this, type this at the top of your article: {{subst:submit}} and save the page. This will put it in the queue to be reviewed for the encyclopedia. It may be declined, but if it is the reviewers will tell you what to fix, and you can submit it again. By the time it passes it will be a good article and your second article will be easier.

July 9 deletion nominations by Techatology

Thanks for pointing that out. I've restored all three of them and notified the editors concerned. Unfortunately it looks as if only one of them is still editing. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a test

Have I reached 10 edits yet?

Hello,

Few questions Have I reached 10 edits yet? and when will my account be fully confirmed for me to be able to submit my article? Now I've submitted my article for review in the sandbox section what's the next procedure going forward? do I now wait or do I also submit it in another section? How do I upload a picture it is to go with the article?I accidently posted 2 articles in the sandbox area for review however it is only the most recent 1 that I want to keep, how do I get rid of the others? could you delete for me please. Also the article once reviewed and active on Wikipedia id like called nicky slimting walker, so when you type it in google it comes up. --Amellondon (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look forward hear from you

email: amelun

username amellondon--Amellondon

Dear Amellondon: Your article,Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nicky Slim Ting Walker is now correctly submitted. (The others have been removed.) In the future, please don't make more than one copy of an article. If an article is in the wrong place it can be moved instead of another one made; that way there are no abandoned old drafts to clean up.

At the top of the screen you will see on the right a row of options, one of which says "Contributions". If you click on it you can see everything that you have done so far. There seem to be more than ten items on the list, and your account is four days old, so you should be autoconfirmed.

Your article should be reviewed soon, but it will be declined because it doesn't have any references. I have added a references section for you. All articles on Wikipedia have to have references to news reports, magazine articles, books, music reviews, etc., to demonstrate that the subject has been covered in the media and is well known enough to be in an encyclopedia. Blogs, facebook, etc., don't count - the reports have to be in recognized publications with editors, and can't have been written up by the subject or people connected to him. You should start looking for these press write-ups and add them to the article. If the article is declined before you can add them, don't worry, there will be a "resubmit" button on the page; just continue adding the sources and then click on it. Good luck with your article. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Walker's Auctions

Hi Anne. I was told that my article for Walker's Auctions was okay and it was kindly moved to the mainspace with a tag that it needs to be reviewed. Since I know you do "Articles for Creation" (Hannah Franklin), I am hoping that you could take a look at it and let me know if there were any issues or remove the tag if it's okay. Also I'd like to know if it's okay for me to ask you directly or would you prefer that I use the Teahouse? The coverage of Montreal artists and art institutions is very spotty, so I am trying to improve the situation. I know wikipedia likes auction houses and Walker's is the largest reseller of Inuit Art in Canada and hence the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walker%27s_Auctions Thanks again. HeatherBlack (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HeatherBlack. It looks like another editor already removed the tag. It's fine to ask for help on someone's talk page. The only problem is that the person may not see the message for some time (not everyone works on Wikipedia every day). When you ask at the Teahouse, one or more of the hosts is usually hanging about. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anne. I haven't quite figured out all the ins and outs of submitting articles and I was more concerned that an administrator or someone with the right authority reviewed it than I was with time. But yes I do like Teahouse for common and immediate problems. You are all great! Thanks again. HeatherBlack (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Heather: Actually, most of the people who review articles aren't administrators. There are over 100,000 active editors on Wikipedia, and fewer than 2,000 are administrators. With over four million articles, they can't look at them all. They are there for us to call on in case of a dispute or a tricky problem, but the rest of us are just editors like you who have been around a bit longer. I hope you continue to make articles about arts topics, and maybe after a while you will be helping out the new editors yourself. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for You!

	The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar
	Congratulations, Anne Delong! You're receiving The AFC and Teamwork Barnstars because you reviewed 250 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! Mdann52 (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Huygens

Hi, Anne! I don't know if you saw my comment on this article at the Help Desk, where I expressed concerns about copyright. I've looked at it again this morning, and it seems clear that (1) the French wp article was created by one of the many Franks on 16 October 2012 by copying more or less verbatim from here (2009 archive) or somewhere else carrying the same content; and that (2) our page was created on 18 October 2012 by one of the many Franks either by translation of the French article or by copying from here. I believe it should be blanked as a full-scale copyvio, but do not want to tag it without seeing what you think. Best, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Justlettersandnumbers: Sorry not to have responded. I was camped in a field at a bluegrass festival in a rural area with no internet access for three days. I have now posted at the help desk, but my reply may not be all that helpful. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, and np. I've taken a somewhat zero-tolerance approach at the article, but am fully open to suggestions as to how it could better be dealt with. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might not have seen this. Just to say, well spotted there! I don't think I would have picked that up. Best, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers, for sorting this out. I am in the middle of some stuff at Afc and probably wouldn't have done anything more about it myself. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Ekin Tunçay Turan

Hello... Will you please tell me how did you decide about her so fast? Did you research on the internet? If you did so, how can you judge websites as being no reliable independent sources to show notability or to verify the information although you don't know Turkish? There are also English websites which gives information about her, that you may find unreliable! It's really hard to understand your approach. You're living in Canada and qualifying someone -that you know nothing about - of being not notable. I wonder why you chose to be destructive instead of constructive. (like Ssilvers) Will you enlighten me how did you come to the conclusion that her information must be deleted? What's your purpose of sending message to Wikipedia-TURKEY? (Türkiye) Are you trying to prove that you know better than them? Thanks in advance.Movericks (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Movericks: The reason that I proposed the article for deletion was because the main part of the article had to be deleted because it was illegally copied from a web site. The part that was left was just a list, and wasn't an article itself, and none of the sources were independent. The article could only stay if someone knowledgeable fixed it up. That's why I notified both the Wikiproject Theatre and Wikiproject Turkey. People who know about theatre would be most likely to want to save the article and also to know what to write in the biography. People who could speak Turkish would be most likely to be able to add some sources. I really hoped that someone from these projects would act to improve the article so that it wouldn't be deleted. It has partly worked, since the biography has been rewritten.

About the sources: In Wikipedia, the word "notability" means "written about extensively in reliable publications independent of the subject". All Wikipedia articles must have references to these independent sources. This means that the theatre that employ her, her agent, or her own web site are not acceptable sources to show notability, no matter what they actually say, because they are not independent. What's needed are some news reports, theatre reviews that talk specifically about her, magazine articles, etc. If you speak Turkish and can find some of these, please add references to them to the article.

A proposal for deletion doesn't mean that the article must be deleted, only that a decision about whether to delete the article needs to be made, and it gives other editors a chance to speak for or against it, or to improve it. Since you obviously think the article should be kept, please go to the discussion page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ekin Tunçay Turan and say why you think it should be kept. If you can say that you have improved the article by adding independent sources, this would be a very strong positive reason for keeping the article.

Good luck, and thank you for taking part in making the encyclopedia. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nicky Slim Ting Walker

I would like to kindly ask you is asking another editor to edit my article for an option? if so i'd--Amellondon (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC) like to kindly ask can you edit my article for me so it meets the Wikipedia criteria, it was in the queue for review however i have been asked to continue editing it and to resubmit it.[reply]

I'd if appreciate your help and assistance if possible.

Kind regards

Amellondon

Dear Amellondon: I see that your article about Nicky Slim Ting Walker has been declined because it doesn't have any references to reliable, independent sources. This means that to have a Wikipedia page Mr. Walker must have been written about extensively in news reports, magazine articles, movie revies, books, etc. I checked on the internet, and all I could find about him were a casting call, a couple of press releases, a mention on a facebook page, etc., all of which appear to be closely connected to him or his film. I would gladly help add the sources to the article if I could find any. Since the film has not yet been released, this may be the reason that it has not yet had any film reviews or other articles written about it or about Mr. Walker by journalists. Unless you know of several of these, your article will not be accepted into the encyclopedia at this time. Perhaps you could try again after the film is released in the theatres. At that time, if you do get some independent press coverage, and have trouble adding the information to your article, ask me again and I will help. Sorry! —Anne Delong (talk) 10:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ histmerge requests

Please, how more Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/... history merge requests are there likely to be? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anthony Appleyard: I am sorry if i have been causing you extra work. I know that history merges are not the most enjoyable thing to do. I would do it myself if it were allowed.

At Afc there are about 200 submissions per day. Occasionally inexperienced editors will accidentally or deliberately delete the submission templates from their articles, in spite of warning text to leave the templates in place. This leaves them no way to submit their articles for review. Many manage to solve their problem by posting at a help page, but over the last two years there have been an accumulation of about 2000 articles which remained "stuck". About 20% of these solved their dilemma by cutting and pasting their articles to mainspace and abandoning the draft articles. Recently a bot has been marking these old drafts with a category so that the Afc reviewers can deal with them.

I've been going through the list in alphabetical order, comparing the title of the drafts with titles in mainspace. I've been asking for merges on about half of the ones that I find; if there were only a few edits by the same editor who did the pasting I have been requesting speedy deletion under G6 {houskeeping) or G13 (abandoned Afc drafts). I've only been requesting merges on ones in which either there were multiple editors or where most of the development was done in the draft article over a significant time period. I don't know how many there will be, but I can tell you that I am up to the letter J in the alphabet.

This category really needs to be cleaned out; once the backlog is gone we hope to catch new "stuck" submissions quickly before the editors get frustrated and abandon them. However, if you think that I am overloading the system, I can limit the number of requests per day, or I am open to suggestions for a different way to deal with them. What do you think? —Anne Delong (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if some other admin helped me by taking over part of the load of history-merging, as long as this rush lasts. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Mark Arsten was helping for a while. Maybe he would do some more. There are other reviewers working on rescuing some of the articles, and by removing those that can be fixed mechanically I am trying to make their work more efficient. Would it be a good idea to post a message on the Administrators' Notice Board noting that there will be a lot of history merges to be done over the next few days? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty bad about checking the queue, but feel free to give me as many assignments on my talk page as you like. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, Mark. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you perform any histmerges, please log them in Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I am not allowed to do history merges, I presume that your comment was aimed at Mark. Or do you want me to check my watchlist and do the logging? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I think that was my mistake, I'm bad with paperwork. Sorry Anthony!
  - @Anne Maybe one of these days you'll be able to do them yourself :) Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, joy! —Anne Delong (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please, how more Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/... history merge requests are there likely to be? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Anthony: I am up to the letter M now in the abandoned draft category, so likely there will be about the same number to go as I have sent already. However, among the regular submissions, there will never be an end, because inexperienced users are creating more every day, partly because the "Move" function is well hidden in the main interface. The reason that I am trying to get these done is that all of the submissions which haven't been edited for six months are about to be deleted, which is fine for those which really are abandoned, but the ones that are pieces of the history of accepted articles really should be attached, especially in cases where the person who did the cut and paste is not the originating author, or where the article is really years older than the current history indicates. I really haven't been doing as many as before...I just got back from a "dialup only" area. I don't know how else to deal with this problem; do you have a suggestion? Maybe you should just let them sit in the merge request queue and see if another admin will come along and do them. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to have seemed impatient. I realise that this causes much work for you also. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a seemingly unending stream of history merges isn't my idea of fun, either. I took time out today, though, to participate in two musical events, so I only did a few this morning. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Musical events :: yesterday afternoon & evening I went to a big Hallé Orchestra concert in the open at Jodrellbank. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Swan Gallery

Hi Anne,

I submitted a page for The Swan Gallery but it was rejected for note having third party references to it. I have added a few others but most of the articles that we have been linked to have been for newspapers/magazines & don't have links to them online.

Regards,

Chris

Chrislamb33 (talk) 10:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chrislamb33. I have rearranged your article to make it more like those already in the encyclopedia. Actually only one of the items that you added may be an independent source, and even that one may be a press release, since it doesn't have the name of a reporter attached and may have been written by someone from the Swan Gallery (you may know). The others are all definitely written by Gallery personnel.

I have deleted the contact information section from your article, since this is totally promotional and not appropriate. Those interested can go to the gallery web site for that information. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a free advertising web site.

Wikipedia only has articles on notable subjects. This means that the subject has to have been written about extensively by journalists or other authors not connected with the subject, who then published the information in established, reliable publications. Not all businesses fall into this category, and if no one has written about the Swan Gallery your article will not be accepted. However, the references do not have to be on line. If newspapers or magazines which are published only on paper have written about the gallery, you can add references to that as long as you are specific (article title, date, name of author, etc.) so that it can be checked, and as long as the writer was not connected to the gallery. I changed your one reference into a citation - you can see how I did it by looking at the source code.

I hope this helps. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Palmetto Education Association) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Palmetto Education Association, Anne Delong!

Wikipedia editor Rinnenadtrosc just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Palmetto Education Association is a great new article. Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment on Rinnenadtrosc's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Khim Borey may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Khim Borey}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G13

I notice that you are tagging articles for CSD G13. Are you aware that there is a bot approved to search for these and add to the cat?

There are two reason why you might consider doing other tasks:

Your expert time is valuable, and could be put to good use for tasks which cannot easily be done by a bot.
I've reviewed the code of the bot, and therefore feel comfortable deleting CSDs added by that both with spot-checks that the tag is correct (and after checking hundreds, have found zero errors). In contrast, when I see one added by a human, I want to double-check myself, so they take longer to process.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 11:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, after glancing around this page. I see you are doing great work with AfCs and the Teahouse. Thanks.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 11:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It really is complicating things. Can we talk?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't nominated any since reading your message. I am asking for more information at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template and then I will get back to you. In the mean time I will just keep a list.. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen several appear since my message, e,g. Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/La_famille_Claudeenne at 13:54 UTC. Maybe there's a delay between nominating and appearing? No big deal, but I thought maybe you had missed the note.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me to that thread, it's been informative, and I'll try to contribute there.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two Quote for you

	Ali Award for you
	« There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance ». « People have either a brother of you in the religion, or brother of you in the creation». .Ali ۝ ۝ (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kalattiyur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mettupalayam (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CSI Immanuel Church, Ernakulam

Please see my response at WT:X. John Carter (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ulysses Owens Jr.

Hi Anne,

Thank you for sending me the message about this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ulysses_Owens

It would be great it you could help me! I have tried to get this article up to snuff for some time, and it has been a little discouraging that it hasn't been accepted. I am also somewhat unfamiliar with the format for messages, so hopefully this finds you.

Thanks, Nick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicktgrinder1 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nick: I have found a couple of independent reviews and added them to the article. This is the sort of thing that the reviewers are looking for, written, edited and published, not a press release or an announcement of a gig. I have formatted the first on so that it looks like a proper reference instead of just a URL. Remember that you can submit as often as necessary, as long as you keep making improvements in between. Mr. Owens is obviously well known, so it shouldn't take too much longer to get this accepted. I think the problem before was that some of the lists of awards didn't mention him, and information from his or his group's web sites are not independent. I'm sure that drummers often have this problem, getting less mention than singers or lead guitarists, even though they are indispensable to the sound of the group. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anne, I really appreciate you adding the reviews, yet the article was still declined. I believe you found some great articles on Ulysses, and I am slightly unsure of where to go from here. Any help you can offer is greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicktgrinder1 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Bumi Serpong Damai (August 25)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bumi Serpong Damai.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Hasteur (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Submission/Emily Summers Design

Hello Anne,

I recently submitted an article for submission and it was rejected. I am intending on re-submitting it. How do I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreavictoria91 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Andreavictoria91! (Don't forget to sign your posts by typing for tildas (~).). Just click on the blue "Resubmit button" in the pink decline box. This should make a large yellow box appear either at the top or the bottom of the page. Then you will know that it is resubmitted. Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmitting article - help!

Dear Anne,

You may recall my article Algeco Scotsman never appeared. I'm not sure what I did wrong and I'd like to try again. Could you assist me with that? Any common mistakes you think I may have made in submitting?

Thank you for your help.

Lisa 68.54.252.53 (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lisa: Hello again! The first thing you should do is log in. Then you will see at the top of the page your sandbox. You can write the article there, but remember to save (not just preview!) at least after each paragraph or new section that you add. If you are not sure it's working, you can send me an e-mail and I will tell you if I can see it.

When you are ready to have your article reviewed, add {{subs:submit}} at the top of the page and save.

Common mistakes: Not writing from a neutral point of view, not including references to reliable sources, and using mainly closely connected sources instead of independent ones such as news reports, magazine articles and books. Also, it's not necessary to create a long involved article to be accepted. Just some basic facts and enough independent sources to show that it's a notable (widely written about) subject, then submit. You can always add more after it's accepted, or even while it's in the queue. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation.2FNoorpur_Muzbida_Harsana.
Message added 03:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito☸Dutta 03:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Namaste, there is one new message at the same page. -=Tito☸Dutta 04:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are new messages at the same page. --Tito☸Dutta 20:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mac & Devin Go to High School may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

{plot summary removed as a copyright violation - see talk page for details)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

afc redirects

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Jon Charles Altman which you marked for deletion as " an incorrectly left-over redirect," was rather a redirect that erroneously redirected to the article , instead of to the article talk p (which I fixed). As I understand it, the procedure there is that such redirects to the article talk p. are deliberate as a way of tracking what happens to the AfCs. Personally, I think the whole AfC structure is absurdly confusing and in need of redesign, at least based upon the frequency of my own errors-- I know I get the various steps mixed up at least 5 or 10% of the time when I work there, and I have been known to skip steps and just move pages where they ought to go if I can't figure out what is supposed to be done. Fortunately, the needed resign is probably about to happen. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DGG: I have seen a few of these redirects around, but never one to a talk page. None of the articles I created have one at all. If you don't mind, I am going to start a discussion on the project talk page to get this clear in my own head. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate article page for 24 Indian version

There's already a page for 24 Indian Version TV series: 24_(Indian_TV_series)

The page 24 - Indian version (2013) is unnecessary and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathak.ab (talk • contribs) 08:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pathak.ab: Thank you for pointing this out. I will fix this up. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the IEG Committee

Hi Anne, Thanks very much for your interest in joining IEG Com - we'd love to have you as a member! I left some info about setup for the committee in a longer message on your meta talk page, hope you check that page too. Cheers! Siko (WMF) (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at WT:AFC.
Message added 03:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

the one sean 03:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Lao Human Rights Council

Hi Anne,

We submitted a stub contribution for the organization "Lao Human Rights Council" which you reviewed and rejected. You mentioned that the article was not and encyclopedic article. How can we fix it to make it encylopedic ? There are literally dozens of independent news articles referencing the organization, including the New York Times (Associated Press, Fresno Bee,Star Tribune, Agence France Press, etc.) . I was submitting a stub, so I did not have time to reference these at the time. What should I do to resubmit and make the article encyclopedic ? I would be grateful if you could advise, so we do not make this mistake again and waste our time and effort with submissions that do not meet wikipedia standards. If possible, we would like to resubmit. Thanks for your help.

Publico2020 (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Publico2020 : Don't worry! The page that I declined was just the one on which you had posted a question. You submitted it, so I had to decline it to get it out of the review list because it wasn't an article. I moved the text to your talk page, so it was just an empty page. Your submission is still up for review at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Lao Human Rights Council. You can delete the large blue box from your talk page if you want to. Sorry to have confused you. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anne,

Thanks. But, I think that I messed up again. Before getting your good message, I posted a question again on the Lao Human Rights Council page again to you. I guess I am a little confused about how things work with the talk pages, etc., and am still learning.

Maybe I messed the page up again that you mentioned because I posted a question again, etc.

I also added more newspaper reference sources to the submission stub, which I do not know if they went through or not for the review list article "Lao Human Rights Council"

Thanks a lot for taking the time to reply and explain things to me, I am learning (slowly) the process. What you explained to me is helpful. Is it possible for you to double check what you mentioned above in your previous reply. Because I think I made mistake in posting a question to the empty page that you mentioned (once again--my mistake). I apologize. I do not know how to correct this. Publico2020 (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined article

Dear Anne, I recently submitted an article on Prof. Lim Keuky, the founder of the Cambodian Diabetes Association. It was declined on the basis of transgression of the copyright laws. I am new to Wikipedia. I am the Deputy Director of CDA Siem Reap Branch and created and wrote the website from which I have taken most of the content of the article I submitted. Is it possible to reconsider the article given this information? I appreciate your time. Thank you.CDA Siem Reap (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Siem: Wikipedia has a policy that all of its editors must edit as individuals and not as representatives of an organization. The material on the CDA web site is considered to be the intellectual property of the organization. You could have a vote of your board of directors to donate the text to Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials); however, because Wikipedia licenses all of its text freely, it would then be able to be used, changed and republished by anyone in the world, and they may not want that. Remember that once the text is in the encyclopedia, others will change and add to it. In any case, the text is not suitable for the encyclopedia, and should be rewritten in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. For example, feelings, devotions and aspirations should not be included. Looking at your submission, I notice that it was mostly about Professor Keuky. You should probably title the article about him rather than the CDA, or write a separate article about each.

Your article also had a separate problem: Every Wikpedia article has to have references to reliable sources such as news reports, magazine articles or books that are written about the subject by independent writers. If you decide to keep working on your submission, be sure to add these.

You can continue to work on the same submission by editing it and removing the line that says "afc cleared", and then just add text. Or, if you decide to use a different article name you can start a new submission. Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anne I regret the extra work I caused by accidentally submitting an article (Ticks of domestic animals) that I had already submitted, and had been accepted in December 2011. (This article now seems well regarded by its readers.) However, it was still in my Sandbox when I submitted two new and related articles on September 9, 2013, titled Mites of domestic animals, and Insects of domestic animals. As a fairly new contributor to Wikipedia, I have found all procedures well enough explained, except for a clear procedure of how to finally submit an article, so my actions yesterday were a bit uncertain. Thank you for all your hard work as an editor. Wadudu (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article declined: Ticks of domestic animals

Dear Anne Repeated message with Subject inserted!

I regret the extra work I caused by accidentally submitting an article (Ticks of domestic animals) that I had already submitted, and had been accepted in December 2011. (This article now seems well regarded by its readers.) However, it was still in my Sandbox when I submitted two new and related articles on September 9, 2013, titled Mites of domestic animals, and Insects of domestic animals. As a fairly new contributor to Wikipedia, I have found all procedures well enough explained, except for a clear procedure of how to finally submit an article, so my actions yesterday were a bit uncertain. Thank you for all your hard work as an editor. Wadudu (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wadudu. No problem, this type of thing happens all the time. Yesterday I found three copies of one article! If you create an article in your sandbox, or on a user page (for example, User:Alan R Walker/Article name), there are two ways that you can put it into the encyclopedia. (1) If you are sure that it has good, reliable references, isn't a copyright violation, is factual and not an advertisement, then you can move it yourself to article space (using the move command under the little black triangle at the top if the page). (2) If you want it to go through a review first, just to be sure, you can submit it to "Articles for creation" by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article and wait for a reviewer. I do some of each; if I have a conflict of interest, or if its a marginal topic, I use Afc. If I know it's okay, I just move it to article space under the title I want. Good luck —Anne Delong (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ACT Holding

Hi Anne Delong,

Good day!

I would like your help on how to get approval?

This person is a known person - http://act-holdings.com.sg/about-us/our-founder/ and the company as well here in Singapore.

What would be the arrangement? Do you like to communicate with the owner of the company?

My email is rybaxs@yahoo.com

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rybaxs (talk • contribs) 02:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rybaxs: Wikipedia is not an advertising web site. It only has articles about companies, people, etc., that are so well known that they have been written about in news reports, magazine articles or books. Also, if an article is written about this person, it would have to be written in a neutral, factual way, not as a tribute. References to the news reports and other articles written by journalists or authors not connected with him or his company must be included. Once it is written, the text can be changed by other editors if they find reports to back up their information. Also, you will have to write the article in your own words, not using the text that is published on the web site above. If, after you have found the references, you want to make the article, you should try this link: Wikipedia:Your first article

Bradwardine and District

Hello Anne Re: Bradwardine and District entry submission. Yes, the information I submitted was adapted from a book published by the Bradwardine History Committee in 2003. They listed an extensive timeline; I took out only the information applying directly to Bradwardine and District (my home town and district). This is a first time (probably the only time :-) submission to Wiki for me. Ghost towns have a history. I figured people ought to know Bradwardine was once a lively, vibrant, thriving town and district.

Dilys Collier Tyndalstone (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Red Deer AB[reply]

Animal Care College

DEar Anne,

Thank you for your message

It is my intention to complete this entry - when I can find time to negotiate all the protocols.

Please leave it for editing for the moment it you do not mind. I also have another one proposed for Our Dogs - the same problems apply

Best wishes86.181.68.197 (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David

Hello Anne, I'm new and beginner. But I learned this morning how can I write "title"... I think that it's better now. Thanks--77.251.14.186 (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anne, I'm beginner here. But I learned this morning how can I write the "title". Thanks--Tarasyani (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback at VPT

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at WP:VPT.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Redrose64 (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article declined

Could you advise why the article was declined please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukpayroll (talk • contribs) 16:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ukpayroll. I left a note at the top of the article about why it was declined, but perhaps you didn't see it. All Wikipedia articles about companies have to have references to sources not connected to the company, such as news articles (not ads or press releases), magazine articles, books, product reviews, etc. Your article doesn't have any. If the company has never been written about by journalists or other authors, then it's too soon for a Wikipedia article. If it has, just add references to these (see the essay Help:Referencing for beginners) to the article and then click on the "Resubmit" button. Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hoot Hester.

By all means you have my permission to delete anything you want. I am not much of a writer and that article needs a lot of help. I went to the same High School as he did and have always admired his talent. Anyway have fun and do not wait for my approval for any sort of rewrite. I am extremely easy to get along with but I do not own a computer. I accept your conditions and am very happy that you have shown interest. Michaelgossett (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have already started making changes to the article. Thanks for the help. You are making it a much better article than it was. God bless you and yours. Michaelgossett (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Michael, I have submitted the article. There's a big backlog, so there will likely be a wait before it is accepted. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Submission of New Article - Vimal Shah

Hi,

I have added the citations as well as I could now. But I will later work on it more thoroughly as I get a hang of how to use Wikipedia more adroitly. Meanwhile how do I resubmit it?

It is still in the talk page...

Regards

Anthony — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdass (talk • contribs) 05:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification re: my Kat Rocket wiki rejection notice

Hi Anne, So first time I'm trying to add to wiki and received your comment that my Kat Rocket item was a copyright violation. The link you provided as the source CBC is a site I started and the wording is mine. I managed Kat Rocket and co-owned our record label "Hoodwink Records Inc." from 1995. In fact most of the Kat Rocket online content is mine and created to promote the band with full support from Darren Donaghey and Stella Panacci of Kat Rocket and my business partners. See this link as example of other wording i created and used in my wiki post - please note my name and creation date: http://www.canadianmusicwiki.com/%28S%28ghmicsrgu23amgrdsotghz55%29%29/Kat-Rocket.ashx. Also our art licensing company now owns all the Kat Rocket masters as part of the Hoodwink Records Inc. shareholders dissolution agreement we signed a few years back.

I'd really love to include the Kat Rocket story on wiki but am also happy to withdraw it if wiki doesn't feel it meets copyright standards.

Thanks for your help and I look forward to your reply.

My best Mariopanacci (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Dear Mariopanacci: Unfortunately, once you have published text elsewhere, there are copyright issues, because all of Wikipedia's text is freely licensed for anyone to use, change or even sell. There is a complicated process by which copyright text can be donated to Wikipedia, but usually for material written to promote something it is not worth the effort because the text would be declined anyway as being "promotional". I have read over your text, and it's just full of what Wikipedians call "puffery" and chatty gossip, includes a large unattributed quote, and has no outside sources such as news reports, reviews, or magazine article citations to support the information. If you would like to include an article about this band in Wikipedia, you will have to pretend that you are an uninvolved author, just writing up a neutral, factual report, supporting the facts with published sources, and leaving out all opinions and praise. The exception to the praise part is if it can be written as a fact, such as "Reviewer XXX, of YYY magazine, found the band to have excellent harmonies and lyrics". I know that this is more work than just copying already written text, but it's what every Wikipedia article editor has to do. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anne, Wow I had no idea what wikipedia was all about and I've been a regular reader for many years. I totally accept your positions and will now attempt a total rewrite. The web is full of Kat Rocket published sources with reviewer and magazine tags so I should be able to contribute them rather than my existing text. Thanks so much for pointing out all my errors. Do I win the prize for the worst, most self serving, vain attempt at "puffery" ever to attempt inclusion into wikipedia (: ). My very best 70.31.156.243 (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Mario, not the worst by a long shot. Last month there was a an article about a model that included naked photos, and at least you didn't say that you'd been endorsed by God as has been the case several times (really hard to refute). Make sure that the published material you cite was not written by the band or its friends ("press releases"), but by real reviewers and journalists. Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review :'Perumpillichira'

Hi Anne I recently submitted an article about the village I grew up named 'Perumpillichira'. It was rejected in the initial review due to lack of references. Unfortunately, I'm not able to find enough reference material as this village is so small and not at all famous. I wrote this tiny article based on my own experience living there for 20 years. Please let me know how can I help you to make the review effective

— Preceding unsigned comment added by John.valen (talk • contribs) 20:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anish: Luckily, Wikipedia doesn't require many references for a small article about a village. Mainly, we require proof that it is a village recognized by the government. So, if it has a post office designation, or a has census report, is marked on a published map, is on the local municipality's list of villages, anything like that will suffice. How about *http://yellowpages.sulekha.com/idukki_perumpillichira_area_pin-code.htm

—Anne Delong (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anne I looked at the links you provided and they are all accurate.So, I added them under reference. Please let me know if this is sufficient — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.valen (talk • contribs) 22:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear John.valen: The article still needs work, and should have sources about some of the facts, but you have added enough to show that it is a notable topic, so I have passed it. I removed some adjectives that would be considered opinion rather than fact. I hope that you will continue to improve it, and maybe make articles about other topics that interest you. Good luck, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildas (~). —Anne Delong (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Bradley Sr.

Anne, I took the information from the previous article and re-wrote it, adding additional sourced material that I had. Feel free to combine their histories...thanks! Rozehawk (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Our Dogs Weekly Newspaper

Hi Anne, Just a 'heads up' as I've only just noticed you left a message at User talk:DavidCavill re the above asking if he intended to move it over to main space. I've been watching the draft as I suspect the 'history' section looks to have been substantially copied from here; and the intro, profile and politics sections seem to be from this article with just company details altered and no attribution given. COI (and possibly promotion?) may also come into the equation (David Cavill owns Our Dogs - see third line from the bottom of the draft; he also owns Animal Care College, which incidentally it looks like the editor had created an article for previously but was deleted). SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sagaciousphil. I have been going through old draft articles that have never been submitted for review. I've been asking editors if they intended to submit their articles for review; sometimes they think they have already done so. If he had submitted, at that point all of the article's flaws would have come out. However, since you have found a serious copyright violation, there's no need to wait for the draft to be submitted. I'll see what I can do about it. Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thank you for helping me reach the first step in my first submission AfC. 112SU Stornoway

112SU Stornoway (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:La Luz del Mundo

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:La Luz del Mundo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at Zach Vega's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback 2

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at Zach Vega's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A barnstar for you!

		The Articles for Creation barnstar
		Thanks for explaining the inline citation proceedures to me. Zach Vega (talk to me) 13:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

from John Rester Zodrow

Hi, Anne,

whoops, looks like I screwed up. I'd be pleased if you re-did my article in the correct format. Also, if you have any suggestions with the overall references, categories and URLs I've added, I'd appreciate it greatly. Thanks, again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnzodrow (talk • contribs) 15:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, John, I have fixed things up the best I could. Here are my suggestions about your references:

^ Quote from Gina MacDonald, Contributor, in Biographical Dictionary Of Contemporary Catholic Writing, ISBN 0-313-24585-1, p. 307

If you can add the publisher of this dictionary, that would be good.

^ SEE ISBN NUMBERS, Amazon Kindle Book Store, Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble Nook Store, Barnesandnoble.com ^ Amazon, Amazon Kindle, Barnes & Noble, Nook store]

These are not useful. Wikipedia is not interested in who is selling the book, and you are asking the readers to go look it up themselves. What's needed instead are book reviews written by independent authors, not those interested in selling the books. If you can't find such a review, or the book mentioned in a magazine article, for example, and the sales notice is all there is, make a proper reference beside the appropriate book with the exact URL, such as (inside the ref tags) Book Name

^ IBDB,(International Broadway Data Base), IBDB.com, Dramatic Publishing Catalog, 2012, p. 181

Separate these into two different references. Add the exact URL of the page that has the information in the database, not just the general URL. For the second one, you need the title of the item in the catalog and the name of the publisher of the catalog.

^ IMDB, (International Movie Data Base) IMDB.com, Leonard Maltin's TV Movies, p. 579, p. 684, Writers Guild Of America Awards, 1976, WGAW.org

Separate these into three references. Again, you need the exact page in the IMBD. Leaonard Maltin's book is good, but give the title of the entry and his publisher's name and the year, since there are multiple editions of this book. You need the exact URL at WGAW.org that shows the award that was won.

^ IMDB, IMDB.com

Too general. See above.

^ Biographical Dictionary Of Contemporary Catholic American Writing, Edited by Daniel J. Tynan, Greenwood Pres, ISBN 0-313-24585-1, pp.307-309

Add the title of the dictionary entry.

^ See Ya Publishing

Do they have a web page? If not, maybe a listing in a directory of publishers? Otherwise you should remove this.

Remember, when the reviewers are deciding on the notability of the author (you, I guess), they only consider what has been written by other authors and journalists. The IMBD and IBDB are user-contributed; the publishers and sales sites don't have a neutral point of view. It would be helpful if you could find some reviews to add as references.

I hope this helps. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

from John Rester Zodrow

Thank you, Anne for all your input. I'm on it.

It's the clearest best advice I've ever had. Many thanks again. Johnzodrow (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Dear Anne

Thank you for your inputs on an article for creation for Ang Jolie Mei. Special thanks for directing me to the Singapore Wiki Project page. I am new to Wiki and was unaware of this. Thanks for the help again

Regards Petson Peter AKA Writer WrenchWriterwrench (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding the Order that the bot is intending to nominate

Would a userspace list of the "What submission/who" ordered by how the bot is going to nominate be useful? I could see a userspace task where the bot updates the list to move a indicator to show what the last submission that was nominated was and add to the list each time a new set of AfC pages became eligible for G13 (and the bot served notice on them). Would that be useful for the AfC rescue crew? Hasteur (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hasteur: As I understand it, the bot takes a certain month, say November 2011, and it nominates the G13 eligible submissions in alphabetical order. A simple way to arrange this would be to make a page with sections, list them in order, and let people check them off. For example:

2011 November

A-C - Done. Anne

D-F - Anne is working on this

G-I - Done. John Doe.

J-L -

2011 December

A-C - Hasteur is doing this one

D-F - Sue is working on this

G-I - Done. Fred.

This would not need any software intervention. After a while we should be well ahead of the bot. The user box could be in the top corner. In fact, I am going to set up such a page in my user space today and start using it, and see if anyone else is interested.

If it's not too much work, an announcement to put on the page that says "The G13 bot has reached this date, and has nominated submissions up to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation.submission name" (so that we can see what letter of the alphabet it is working on) would be helpful. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Currently it's running through months by date. Shortly that's going to change (based of my changing the "nudge driver") to a by-date-alphabetical Once the bot has traversed the barrier it'll go by days alphabetically. By publishing the list, editors who are interested in pre-checking can run ahead of the bot, and can work the list in the same order that the bot would. The idea would be to provide both the page name, and which editor created it so that if the page title link doesn't work (the page title had a unicode character in it) you can go over to the user talk page and grab the title. Hasteur (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not in running ahead of the bot. We can already to that by using the Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions. The optimum would not to be working anywhere near where the bot is working. The problem is in knowing which ones have already been checked by someone else. Does your solution address that issue, because to me that is the only problem right now. Are you saying that the submissions are not being nominated in the same order that they are listed in the Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions? That's confusing. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that starting in a bit, the Sorting that's on the G13 eligible AfC submissions is not going to be as accurate due to the fact that the Bot runs the nominations by Day now (instead of the original by month) whereas the G13 AfC submissions are sorted only to Month level. For example, Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/The Backwater will be processed before Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AJ Allen Investments / Equity Partners of Texas (assuming that the last edit date for both was the same date) because Backwater was initially submitted on the 1st of September whereas the AJ Allen was submitted initially on the 2nd of September. The idea is to present as accurate of list to the rescue crew (Deliberately not using rescue squad as there's charged emotions with respect to those 2 words used toghether) with as accurate of a list as possible. Hasteur (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hasteur: Okay, I'm not sure why the order of nomination is being changed, but why not change the order of the sort of the category to match? Having two different sorts laying around of the same list, one of which is misleading, doesn't seem to make sense. However, I don't really care about all that. I am interested in trying not to waste my time by looking over ones that have already been looked at. I presume since you didn't say anything about it that this is an unrelated problem, the answer is no. SI am unaware of anything particular about the words "rescue" and "squad", but I will happily change my language if it is mysteriously charging people with emotion. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bot has to advance by days now because we're now running into the end of the 6 month period. The bot also had to run in the by day categories because a process that runs for 24 hours to nominate a single month category is too long. Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron is the genesis of the emotion regarding Rescue and Squadron. Some people percieve it as a way to canvass editors to straight oppose a deletion nomination. Hasteur (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my page title. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From John Rester Zodrow

Hi, Anne,

I followed your instructions closely. So feel I've added specific sources, full URLs and reviews you wanted. The article is up. Would you be so kind as to take a quick look at it? Isn't the reference reflist supposed to automatically generate?

Thanks.

Johnzodrow (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Johnzodrow: I am not sure what you mean about the references. They appear to be there. Were you having trouble making them show up? If so, the problem has been fixed.

When looking at the references, the number of IMDB references are overwhelming the others. Isn't there one page at IMDB that summarizes everything connected with a certain person? I don't usually see individual references for each item. Remember that IMDB is not considered to be a reliable source, since people input their own information. You can still link the one reference to a number of spots in the article, Like this:<ref name=John's IMDb page>[http://URLHERE TITLE]</ref> for the first one, and then <ref name=John's IMDb. page /> after that.

I see that you have found a couple of book reviews.

Reading over the text of your article, I see that there is a lot of material that isn't written in your own words. Quotations should only be a small part of an article, not the main part. Here's something to read: WP:QUOTEFARM

Some articles to look at for examples:

I will be leaving you now to another reviewer, because although I am fairly good with references, I am not an expert in either writing or Catholicism. Good luck. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Bumi Serpong Damai was accepted

Bumi Serpong Damai, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Zach Vega (talk to me) 12:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfC

See my talk p. for my response DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

from John Rester Zodrow

Dear Anne,

thank you again for the insight and help. I'm on it. Can I ask who is the new reviewer you are recommending?

very best to you,

John

Johnzodrow (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear John: I really don't know the strengths of the various reviewers. If your article is submitted and is in the queue, someone will pick it out to review. However, there are a couple of things that you can do in the meantime: (1) You could leave a message at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, asking if there's anything that should be fixed up before the review. You could also ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism and maybe find someone who has worked on similar articles and would be willing to help. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citing CVs with backup URLs

Glad to get your comment "Add citation" to my query to the Help Desk a few days ago. An article (David G. Benner), now newly in mainspace after Roger(Dodger67) moved it, needed more references in two of the four paragraphs under Careers. I've added a couple today and could put in more but would love to know the sensible WP approach for citing CVs. It's pretty clear in admins' and editors' postings and other guidelines that pseudo-promo sources like Facebook, LInkedIn and blogs aren't reliable sources. Yup, can see that. Now, an APA stylebook guideline, one of the few, says to handle things like this: to write that the text's info comes from a CV (of a certain date if listed), then record where the info is accessible online. I've done it that way for one of the newest reference notes. While researching the article, I was finding short snibs of career info mentioned in solid sources, and those could be compiled and referenced (lumpy solution), but the plainest and most orderly outline of Benner's worklife is on his own website. I like the APA solution (Chicago Manual of Style wasn't useful) but still feel antsy about the situation for future editing. What think? JaneFaber (talk) 06:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JaneFaber: There is nothing to prevent you from citing a person's own web site, but this type of citation is extremely weak, and should be accompanied by other, more independent sources. A biography written by the person himself tells what he would like the world to know about him, whereas an encyclopedia is a synopsis of what independent authors and journalists have written about him. Making a point of disclosing that the information is from a CV is good, but it is a weaselly way of not finding proper verification. You see this in news articles when the reporters don't want to bother to check their facts, so instead of writing "John Smith was innnocent of the crime", they write "According to his mother, John Smith was innocent of the crime" (perfectly true). The style guides for professional organizations are intended to be used to allow the reader to judge the level of expertise of a person cited as corroboration of someone else's work in an essay or a paper published in a journal. A person shouldn't be used to verify information about himself.

Let me give you an imaginary example: Mr. X is the CEO of an oil company. It's important for the stockholders' confidence in the company that he appear capable and reliable. He lists on the company web site what he sees as his most positive accomplishments, a glowing report of education completed, positions held, committees worked on, involvement in charitable works, etc. He says nothing about the time he spent in alcohol rehab, the fact that two of his previous companies went bankrupt, his arrest years before for tax evasion, or the fact that he led the company in an efficiency drive, cutting back on pipeline inspections, leading to an oil spill and protests by angry fishermen. Yet all of these things, if written about in the media, would end up in his Wikipedia article (if he existed).

Anyway, I guess my point is to keep looking for independent corroboration, and if you do use the CV as a source, be prepared for other editors to remove it or replace it with an independent one, and to add and change the information in the article to better match the independent source if it differs from the CV Sorry; I know that this is likely not what you wanted to hear. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anne Delong. Fair enough, and thanks for a full answer. I'll pare back the CV citation added yesterday as a stop-gap for the two career paragraphs and will gradually put in specifics for independent corroboration. (At what point can the "no reliable sources" panel be removed?) Other editors will weigh in, over time, and on we go. Good process. Honourable. JaneFaber (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were mentioned in a new issue on GitHub for AFCH

Hey Anne, just thought I'd let you know about https://github.com/WPAFC/afch/issues/184 to see if you support such a thing or if you think it should be an off by default option. Thanks! Technical 13 (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing my attention to this. I think you should bring this up at the Afc talk page instead of at an off-Wiki discussion. Others besides me may have an opinion. For myself, I think that it is a minor issue, and not worth putting any work into. Most of the rescued G13s need some work before being submitted. In the odd case where one may be totally ready and was declined for a spurious reason, or maybe had a defective submit template, a decision has to be made as to under whose name to submit the article, and this requires checking the history. I would think that if the submitter has not edited for many months since the article was last submitted, the reviewer could "adopt" the article and just submit it themselves by clicking in Afc the template. If the submitter is still active, then the reviewer should really contact them before submitting. However, if you do go ahead with it, it would just be one more item in a row of options, so it's not really in the way and I see no reason to make it optional. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Incense

Anne, hi! My article on the Holy Incense was rejected on grounds that it sounded more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. I do not deny that it has an essay-like style, but this is larger due to my past writing experiences on other venues. In short, I am asking your advice on how to change the style and make the current article acceptable to the set-requirements of Wikipedia. Can you please suggest areas in which I can change the style and make it acceptable? Here is my article: User:Davidbena/draft article on Holy Incense . Thank you in advance. Davidbena (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David: I have read the first part of your article, although not all of the detailed bits about the spices, and I have some suggestions:

Remember that many Wikipedia readers are not Jewish, so you need to give more factual context. For example, when did all of this happen? "In the time of the Temple" is probably a certain estimated time period.

Most Wikipedia readers are not University graduates, so try to avoid words like "treat", "exegesis" and "esoteric". You are talking about spices - this is not a highly abstract topic. Here's an example: You have written:

"One of the general rules used in biblical exegesis and which was applied to the verse in Exodus 30:34 is this one: "Whenever a generalization is followed by a specified detail, which again is followed by a generalization, one does not infer from its generalization any lesson other than that what is true of the specified detail." The generalization, in this case, is in the first use of the word "SPICES," followed by specified details of "rosin" (i.e. any aromatic gum resin that exudes from trees) and the "operculum" (the so-called "fingernail" spice) and "galbanum" (Ferulago galbanifera, or what is sometimes classified as Ferula galbaniflua). These aforesaid specified details are once again followed by a generalization, "SPICES." This would mean that the "spices" in question can only be those which have similar qualities to those named in the specified details; such as which are true of gum resins (e.g. Mastic, or terebinth gum resin, myrrh, balsam, etc.), and such as which is true of the so-called "fingernail" spice, etc."

I would replace all that with something such as:

"The Book of Exodus, which explains the ingredients of the incense, mentions various aromatic resins, such as ____, as well as ___ and ___, which would be called 'spices' today.

Most of your sources were written long ago, and, as you have pointed out, do not necessarily agree, so it's a good idea to explain where information was found right in the text if it may not be clear. For example (and this is probably messed up because all I know about this topic I learned from "Uncle Arthur's Old Testament Bedtime Stories" or some such.) "According to ____(insert really old document name here), when the Jewish people were wandering in the wilderness after leaving Egypt, on the way to the Land of Canaan, they worshiped their God in a Tent of Convocation. One of the duties of their first priest, Aaron, and later his descendants, (continue description you have, which is clear).

Text that refers to Jewish belief should be clearly delineated from scholarship (I know, that's tricky), by using words such as "The Jewish people believe", or "According to Jewish beliefs". Most of this article would be the scholarship part, since it's mostly about spices. For example, you say "Some suggest" . Some what? The you mention Maimonides, but maybe your should add ", a Torah scholar writing in the Middle ages", because most people won't know who he is. And who are the Sages?

Now, the part that makes it an essay: An encyclopedia article doesn't give any opinions at all, although it may report the opinions of others (hopefully experts). So you can say "Professor Amar argues", but the word "effectively" is your own opinion. All the material where you are weighing back and forth the merits or likelihood of accuracy of information in various texts will have to go. If most scholars believe one thing, just say that and give a couple of references; if opinions are split, say that and give an example from each side. If this means a shorter and simpler article, that's good. You should probably save the article before you start to pare it, because the text that you have now may be suitable later for inclusion in a more scholarly publication.

Now keep in mind that I am only one of 120,000 people who have edited Wikipedia in the past month, and my opinion is only an opinion. Feel free to disregard any section which doesn't make sense to you. Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of style tips from a talk page stalker (one of Anne's many fans): Never refer to the article in the article; constructions such as "A brief description of....is treated in this article" are not acceptable. Rather say "Holy incense is...<then give the definition/description>." Never address, refer to, or instruct the reader - write strictly in the third person unless you are directly quoting a source. Keep in mind that your average reader will have only a high-school level education in history, social science, botany, etc so try to tone down the sophicticated jargon - the WP:NOTJOURNAL page has guidance on this. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Anne and Roger. I will do all that you say!Davidbena (talk) 05:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Raging Bull

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Raging Bull. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bluegrass Alliance

Hey Anne please do feel free to join me and or expedite the process as you did with the Hoot Hester article. I know that Hoot Hester was a friend of one of Lonnie Peerce's but I don't know how long the band stayed in Louisville after I left there in December of 1969. I also don't know too much about what happened after Peerce retired. Anyway feel free to join in on any article I am either creating or editing. The Jim Kweskin article needs help and I am thinking of starting an Article on Subway Elvis. He was an Elvis impersonator long before Elvis died. He if from Toronto. Michaelgossett (talk) 02:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G13 rescue

Hi Anne. I have moved the G13 rescue backlog to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/G13 rescue and done all the Os for December 2011. If I can find coverage in one reliable source for the article's subject quickly, I have postponed it as salvageable (and for a few left links to the source in question). Please advise if I should use the same procedure for AfDs and find as many sources as possible. Where a submission is duplicated in mainspace, I have redirected the submission to there.

Once I know what the procedure is, I can document it and we can get everyone to tackle the backlog. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ritchie333. I will skip the O's. The December 2011's are disappearing before I can check them, because the bot is no longer doing them by the alphabet, but by date, so my procedure will only work if we can stay a month ahead. About the duplicates: These will either have to be dealt with by history merge if appropriate or content from them moved to the the other article if there's enough to be worth the effort, or just let go if they really are duplicates. Because there's a rush, your temporary solution should give some time to do that later. I've been checking any I thought worth saving for copyvios before postponing them. I haven't been as thorough as you at checking for new sources; if there aren't any at all, or if they are all primary sources such as twitter or a band's web site I've been letting them go unless they fall under one of those inherently notable categories, such as a town or a professor. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I've been doing is starting of at , doing all the Os (or whatever) on that page, then clicking on "02", repeating, then "03", and so on. Anyway, the page has project visibility so we should see a consensus on how to move forward. I'm not surprised mainspace duplicates are appearing, since if a submission sent nearly two years ago was on a genuinely notable subject, it's no surprise that another editor has discovered so and created the article. I wouldn't worry about doing a histmerge automatically as they can be a ball-ache - the redirect preserves the submission's history and hence it's copyright. Perhaps if a submission was almost at acceptance stage while its mainspace equivalent was a borderline AfDable stub you might want to histmerge, but I don't feel that's likely to happen. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's cut-and-paste, and if it's just a few diffs by the same editor, the copyright info is preserved anyway in the later text, so I don't bother with those; I just let them go. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, I have started some info on the talk page, but you may want to add to it, since my opinion is just my opinion. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New submission

Hi Anee! I edited Muhammad Sharif (cosmologist). Please check it and include it as an article in Wikipedia. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeeshan313b (talk • contribs) 16:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zeeshan313b. I will look at your submission, but before I do you should remove the personal comments at the top. They belong instead on your personal user page, which would be at User talk:Zeeshan313b. Also, you won't have to worry about trying to organize people interested in Relativity; they are already organized at:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Relativity

...and you can add your name there and start participating in discussions on the talk page. I'm sure you'll meet some kindred spirits there. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anee! I removed the personal comments from the top. Thanks fopr your help. Muhammad Sharif (Cosmologist) is my beloved teacher. That's why i am excited and want to see him in Wikipedia. So please make Muhammad Sharif (cosmologist) as an article in Wikipedia. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeeshan313b (talk • contribs) 17:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anne! I made the changes as you said. I use neutral words and remove the External links from the main body. The revised version of the proposed article is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Muhammad_Sharif_%28cosmologist%29&action=submit

So please make Muhammad Sharif (cosmologist) as an article in Wikipedia. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeeshan313b (talk • contribs) 10:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread

Hi Anne. FYI - You posted a G12 speedy deletion notice on ClopperAlmon's talk page and he/she then posted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Article_on_Alfred_H._Bartles. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jreferee for the heads-up. I wrote the person a note. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anne, Thank you for taking the time to write to me at some length about the article I submitted on Alfred H. Bartles. As far as I can see from the material you sent, I was never given the opportunity to DELETE the submission which you had decided not to use. Thus, when it later appeared elsewhere, you deleted it for copyright reasons. I regard this mixup as a result of the difficulty and complexity of communicating with Wikipedia. Please understand that I long WANTED IT DELETED from Wikipedia and could find no way to do so.

When I got your message, I wanted to reply but could find no way to do so. After a lot of poking around on Wikipedia, I found this channel. At the top, it says "Put new text under old" but it does not say how to do so. It could simply add "by clicking the word [Edit] after the title."

Probably there is a better way to reply, but I failed to find it. Just another instance of how difficult it is to communicate with Wikipedia.

I see that someone has put a brief notice on Bartles on Wikipedia. Perhaps I can edit it to provide links and more information.

ClopperAlmon (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, ClopperAlmon. I agree that Wikipedia can be complicated. There are actually over 30,000,000 pages, (4,300,000 articles), and almost all of them have been created by unpaid volunteers, who discuss additions and changes in groups and then do their best to improve the encyclopedia. I am still learning new things about it every day. We are limited by the "Wiki" software, which works differently from a word processor. Luckily, there are a number of help forums, where you will find friendly editors willing to answer your questions. I see that there are a number of links to these on your talk page. I'm sorry that you were not able to figure out how to request deletion of your article, but please don't feel that you have to always find information by yourself; just ask! I hope that if you continue to edit Wikipedia you will have a better experience. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Hello, Anne Delong! I followed this from ANI. Since you deal with new users frequently, and they might need to contact you on your talk page, can I ask you you start archiving your talk page? You see, it took me 3 tries and about 12 minutes to get your talk page to load (I have lowly dial-up still). Some new users are put off by inconveniences and long talk pages is one. Can I ask you to set up an auto-archive using one of the bots? Thanks, (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) --64.85.216.33 (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 10:28, 1 October 2013 edit SineBot (talk \| contribs) Bots 2,552,467 edits m Signing comment by Zeeshan313b - "→New submission: " ← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:30, 1 October 2013 edit undo 64.85.216.33 (talk) →ANI thread: sugg. Next edit →
Line 3,413:		Line 3,413:

	::Hello again, [[User:ClopperAlmon\|ClopperAlmon]]. I agree that Wikipedia can be complicated. There are actually over 30,000,000 pages, (4,300,000 articles), and almost all of them have been created by unpaid volunteers, who discuss additions and changes in groups and then do their best to improve the encyclopedia. I am still learning new things about it every day. We are limited by the "Wiki" software, which works differently from a word processor. Luckily, there are a number of help forums, where you will find friendly editors willing to answer your questions. I see that there are a number of links to these on your talk page. I'm sorry that you were not able to figure out how to request deletion of your article, but please don't feel that you have to always find information by yourself; just ask! I hope that if you continue to edit Wikipedia you will have a better experience. —[[User:Anne Delong\|Anne Delong]] ([[User talk:Anne Delong\|talk]]) 17:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)		::Hello again, [[User:ClopperAlmon\|ClopperAlmon]]. I agree that Wikipedia can be complicated. There are actually over 30,000,000 pages, (4,300,000 articles), and almost all of them have been created by unpaid volunteers, who discuss additions and changes in groups and then do their best to improve the encyclopedia. I am still learning new things about it every day. We are limited by the "Wiki" software, which works differently from a word processor. Luckily, there are a number of help forums, where you will find friendly editors willing to answer your questions. I see that there are a number of links to these on your talk page. I'm sorry that you were not able to figure out how to request deletion of your article, but please don't feel that you have to always find information by yourself; just ask! I hope that if you continue to edit Wikipedia you will have a better experience. —[[User:Anne Delong\|Anne Delong]] ([[User talk:Anne Delong\|talk]]) 17:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
			<span class="outdent-template">([[Wikipedia:Indentation#Outdenting\|←]]) </span>Hello, Anne Delong! I followed this from ANI. Since you deal with new users frequently, and they might need to contact you on your talk page, can I ask you you start archiving your talk page? You see, it took me 3 tries and about 12 minutes to get your talk page to load (I have lowly dial-up still). Some new users are put off by inconveniences and long talk pages is one. Can I ask you to set up an [[Help:Archiving a talk page#Automated archival\|auto-archive]] using one of the bots? Thanks, <small>(Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.)</small> --[[Special:Contributions/64.85.216.33\|64.85.216.33]] ([[User talk:64.85.216.33\|talk]]) 11:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)