Jump to content

User talk:Anne Delong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jdxzhu (talk | contribs) at 02:05, 16 November 2015 (→‎A cup of coffee for you!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Please comment on Talk:Tyson Fury

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tyson Fury. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services


Sign up now


Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox person

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox person. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Afro-Peruvian music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cajita (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) 08:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hi Anne

keep sending as many medical draft or any articles that are related to usWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine, we really appreciated it, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 15 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of European cities by population

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of European cities by population. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Albert Franck has been accepted

Albert Franck, 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.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sulfurboy (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for an amazing 1003 articles rescued and guided into existence

I am totally astounded by the awesomeness of your persistent and careful and productive work on rescuing draft articles. And your encouragement of new editors has lead to many more successful additions to Wikipedia. Thank you so much. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, StarryGrandma. Thanks for noticing! I know that my list is really just bragging, but keeping it is part of my personal motivational system. (Yes, as a child I used to keep a calendar with stickers to remind me to clean up my room.) I have another big list of ones I hope to find time to work on - feel free to take one off my hands!.
I can't help thinking, though, that fixing up these drafts earlier, when the original editors were still active to be encouraged, would be of more long term benefit to the encyclopedia. The trick is in picking them out from the hundreds that are submitted every day.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Worked out your request at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Draft:Dyala_Chack. Thanks. Vin09 (talk) 06:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Advocacy ducks

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Advocacy ducks. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Sailor Moon

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sailor Moon. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Restore D. Ray Heisey

Dear Anne, A Wikipedia administrator deleted the page D. Ray Heisey for copyright infringement. I was the creator of that page and I don't have the idea who added this material to the page. So, first, why should my page be deleted for someone else's fault? And, if the material was copyrighted, shouldn't they gave me time to remove illegal material? Now, can I request for restoration, so I can edit the page? Thanks in advance. Esmatly (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Esmatly. Here are my comments about your concerns:
  • Every time you add something to Wikipedia, you are licensing it for anyone to use, change, or even sell - so it's best not to refer to the page as yours, even if you were the first one to edit it.
  • Some sentences copied from Mr. Heisey's obituary were present when no one but you had edited the article, so you can't blame all of the problem on others. If the copyrighted text had been added recently, the article could have been "reverted" to an older version, but in this case even the oldest material had problems, so the whole article had to go.
  • As soon as copyrighted text is discovered, it has to be removed immediately for legal reasons. There is no choice about this. I know it can be frustrating. With other types of problems that aren't illegal there's more latitude.
  • You have already asked RHaworth about this, and because he had to refrain from restoring copyright material, he did the next best thing and e-mailed you the text, which you received. He suggested that you create a draft article and have it reviewed to make sure there are no problems. Just type "Draft:D. Ray Heisey" into the search engine, click on the red link and add your revised (totally written in your own words, with no close paraphrasing from another document) text and save. When you think it's ready, leave me a message and I will check it over for you. If I don't find copyrighted material, but do find independent references and a neutral point of view, I'll accept the draft.
  • One more thing - as you are probably noticing, each of the hundreds of thousands of editors on Wikipedia has his or her own priorities, and many of them choose not to work on or help with articles that don't interest them. The WP:Teahouse is a good place to find a sympathetic ear when you need help.—Anne Delong (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anne, Thanks for your thorough response. I have created the draft and you can see it here. One problem is that there are some websites that copied material from former Wikipedia page of professor Heisey. Does it mean those material are no longer property of Wikipedia and this new page should be something completely new? Let me know. Yours Esmatly (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Esmatly: I found the article to be free of copyright problems, but it didn't have one very important thing: It didn't explain what he did in his career and demonstrate that he and his work had been written about by others besides his friends and close colleagues. That's what qualifies a subject as notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. I found some book reviews and discussion in books, and added a paragraph about his work with these references. I also took out the bit about his friend, since it didn't seem relevant. I removed the links that were in the main article, since those are not allowed. The article is in mainspace now. If in the future someone adds copyright material, it can always be reverted to this version instead of being deleted.
Yes, it is a problem that others have copied the old article - not a problem for you or for this article, but a problem for others who may have copied the text in good faith thinking that it was legally licensed. That's why Wikipedia tries very hard to remove copyright problems before this happens. Unfortunately, with nearly 5 million articles, and volunteer checkers, it's impossible to keep up. I hope that if in the future you find something like this on Wikipedia you will point it out to someone right away so we can remove it promptly. In answer to your question, any parts of the old article that were original text are still okay to use, even if they have appeared since on another web site. The old article is still available in a hidden archive. However, the original editor who wrote the text should be given credit in your edit summary if you know who it is (I can find out for you if necessary), rather than having it look as though you wrote it yourself. A simpler way is just to add the information, but rewrite it in your own words.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anne, Thank you very much for your help and instructions. I should search and know more about Wikipedia policies. I will also try to check copyright infringements in articles that I check. As regard to evidences which show D. Ray Heisey's notability, there would not be any problem. As most of his life was spent in NO-Internet time, most of resources on him are offline. I will find third party sources about him and I will add them to page.Esmatly (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
Thanks for helping less experienced editors. Esmatly (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 5 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:Sockpuppet

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Sockpuppet. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hi Anne, just wanted to thank you for rescuing Walking boot from the garbage pile where it'd been languishing for nearly 3 years. I was a high school senior experiencing a sudden rare burst of motivation that quickly wore off when I realized my paltry few references weren't enough, and promptly forgot I'd ever started the thing. When I got the notification email telling me it'd been published after all this time I almost couldn't believe it. So: please accept my sincerest thanks and know that you just made my day, and maybe even inspired me to take a crack at writing another one.

Eelamme (talk) 04:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eelamme. Yes, making new articles is one of the hardest things on Wikipedia, especially for new editors, because they don't know the ropes. Many start out with good topics but give up before finishing the job. What really should happen is that other more experienced editors come along and help each new person. However, there are hundreds of new editors every day, and many of the regular editors are busy with their own interests. I hope that you will return to editing! If you don't have a new page in mind, I have this little list of other abandoned pages that I think have potential. You are welcome to pick one out and improve it.—Anne Delong (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Barr (playwright), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Columbia College, Black Caesar and Black Jesus (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) 08:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Fire Emblem Fates

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fire Emblem Fates. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:Olympic Games

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Olympic Games. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OPNsense

Dear user @Anne Delong:, is any record of the recently deleted article OPNsense left over? Is everything -including former versions- inaccessible now? --Miraclexix (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Miraclexix. I see that you put a lot of effort into that article; you must be very disappointed that it's been deleted. Since I am an administrator, I was able to look at the deleted page. I have to agree that a lot of the references are unsuitable - personal websites, blogs or Wordpress sites, forums, announcements and press releases, etc. For a truly notable subject, there should be reviews and news coverage in computer magazines and the tech sections of newspapers, etc.
To answer your question, none of the versions are available on Wikipedia at this time. However, if you want, I can e-mail the text of the latest version to you if you didn't keep a copy.
Here is my suggestion: Wait for several months, keeping an eye on the news sources. If during that time the project is covered in recognized sources (magazines and news outlets with editorial control, not ones where anyone just writes whatever they like), then you can ask for the article to be restored at WP:Requests for undeletion, showing the reviews and news reports that you've found, and agreeing to remove the inappropriate sources.
I know advice to wait until later is not always welcome, but please remember that Wikipedia's policy is to have articles only about subjects that are already well known, and to specifically avoid being used to help new subjects become well known by promoting them.
Let me know if you need a copy of the text.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A copy of the article would be good. Can you put it on a underpage of my userpage, like user/copy, or is there a way not to give you my email through kind of a public means? --Miraclexix (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Miraclexix, if you have e-mail turned on in your preferences, I can send it to you without knowing your e-mail address. I shouldn't post it anywhere on Wikipedia when it's just been deleted. For future reference, if you ever have one of your pages in a deletion discussion again, you could ask for the page to be moved to Draft space as an alternative to deletion, and if the editors agreed the page would be moved there, where search engines wouldn't pick it up. Too late now, though. I will try sending the text through the e-mail process. Let me know if you receive it.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

A very warm thank you for the tone and effort of yours you put into this answer. Why? It is rather the very good exception in WP; I can fully understand your statements, I only do not like the way the WP lets gross-uncivility live it up, both from normal and admin-like WP editors, but waiting is o.k. --

Miraclexix (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Miraclexix, there certainly are a variety of personalities here, some rather over-the-top. I myself have been called rude because I rarely include pleasantries and I say what I think. However, sometimes an editor's feelings are hurt more than they should be because they forget that every page is a collaboration and that the integrity and trueness-to-vision of the encyclopedia is more important than any one person's edits. I have learned to think of my edits as "casting bread upon the waters" (editing impersonally for the good of the encyclopedia) rather than as "casting pearls before swine", (feeling ownership and pride in each edit and being disappointed when others hack and change). I still shake my head at times, but without the angst.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thats the way it goes per email. Thank you for the copy! P.S.: I still at times shake my head but without the revert ;) --Miraclexix (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anne Delong: If you -as an WP-admin- engaged with a longer than WP-average conversation w/me I thank you for your civility, because it is a seldom piece of culture in WP! If you've been called rude or something, you might have deserved it! To speak your mind in to my face would probably cause s.th rude - maybe, if you smile it would be not hard, though :) You told me you speak your mind. If I would do so on WP - not an admin- it would be bad, and encourage others to do the same. You have to decide, do you support rant speech or do you support diplomatic speech, now that you are an admin. I did edits a long time on pseudonym base! Notice that I am WP-around since it's start, some nasty new-sub-admin stalked me on this recently, rudely on my personal TP, I may have to back down to anon editing again, because of them stalking the wrong. This stalker is younger on WP than me, he might simply been envious, he disliked them "Ia ma since this time on WP" info-boxes on the personal page. There are portions of mine given into WP, still persisting, that are older that you probably started editing here (2001), I know some dirty abyss of WP, and I do not want to learn every new stuff the WP head-up-clouds got into. WP: guidelines that non of the staff and non of the admins seem to follow breaks normal Minds. Simpler rules would be better and the few rules should be enforced, even admins and vandal-vandal fighters should toll a portion. You might know what I tell my students and children about WP: do not trust it, find better sources, citing WP is a death-sentence! Now, what did I do? What did you do? There is material older that you stared editing and rose an admin in WP from me, and I am still in search of trustful people on WP, but my testing of one sub-admin, just got me into an witch-hunt of admins. I like it, because it proofs my case! Please convert to be a positive force and get things into perspective. Thanks for that in the long run , because WP needs a reform -- You can answer me , fully welcome, yours truly, but were do I find real persons on WP ??? If you have a _real_ and not forged advice how I could be more productive in the WP - yes I sorta beg you and it does not break a piece of my crown :) - I would appreciate it, because I stepped into and made a new -after a long thought and time - account and need some nice and cultured people here. If you stalk me for coverage, please notice I did also s.th to test the average admin-style WP crowd ;) --Miraclexix (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Miraclexix: Your post covers a lot of topics, and I'm not sure that I understand some of it, but I will say what comes to mind:
  • Having an account isn't necessary to edit Wikipedia articles, but it does make it easier to interact with other editors, so I hope that you will continue to use yours.
  • You are right to tell students not to use Wikipedia as a source. It is only a summary of what is in reliable sources, listed in the reference section of each article, and those are what should be used as sources.
  • The length of time a person has been editing Wikipedia isn't important; it's what he or she has done to improve the encyclopedia that counts. This can be done in two ways: (a) making changes directly to articles of draft articles, adding facts and backing them up with citations to reliable sources, and (b) writing on talk pages to co-ordinate with other editors. Posts on talk pages are worthwhile if they (a) help you to learn to make better contributions to articles, (b) help and encourage other editors who are doing their best to improve the encyclopedia, (c) discourage or prevent editors from making inappropriate changes to articles, or (d) are calm and logical discussions about how to make Wikipedia better. Some other types of posts just cause anxiety and take up everyone's time with drama, slowing down the important work of improving the encyclopedia. I try to avoid these and spend as much time as possible working on articles or drafts, or helping editors who need specific information.
  • If someone leaves a message on your talk page, look first to see if there is useful information in it, rather than worrying over the tone of the message. You can of course remove posts on your own talk, but consider that sometimes leaving messages that are questions and answers may save you time later, preventing another user from asking the same question.
  • Admins are just ordinary editors who have been given some extra cleanup tools. There is no such thing as a "sub-admin". I hope that you will stop spending your time "witchhunting" and "testing" people (this is a form of WP:Trolling).
  • About where to find civil people: You have already been invited to the WP:Teahouse, and there is also WP:Co-op, where you can find a mentor to help you to improve your edits. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnakumar

If you don't mind, I'll move the page to P. Krishnakumar. The redirect from the current page will be automatically generated. Tintin 12:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me.—Anne Delong (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of best-selling girl groups

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of best-selling girl groups. Legobot (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

Hello, Anne Delong. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time.

Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 09:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, North America. Thanks for inviting me to what seems like a very worthwhile project. I won't be participating right now, at last not regularly, because there is so much to do at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/G13 rescue page, and the drafts there are all living on borrowed time. There are only a few of us working there, and I hate to see drafts about Members of Parliament, Olympic athletes, multinational companies, influential scientists, etc., being deleted because their creators didn't add enough sources or understand proper encyclopedic language. Maybe in the future there will be more participants and I can take some time off.—Anne Delong (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Bombay Riots

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bombay Riots. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two times I tried to link Throne of Glass (novel) to this article Throne of Glass (which is about the series). first time second try. Didn't work. --Action Hero 16:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Action. I am assuming that you want the link to Throne of Glass (novel) to appear in the table in Throne of Glass. Your second try made a link which connected the article to itself. Try [[Throne of Glass (novel)|Throne of Glass]] and you should get Throne of Glass. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:B'Day (Beyoncé album)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:B'Day (Beyoncé album). Legobot (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Massimo Livi Bacci, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Rome (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) 11:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Categorization

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Categorization. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AGO Art+Feminism Edit-a-Thon

Thank you so much for your help, Anne! Your presence was much appreciated. Can you help us in preparing for the next one this January? Seazzy (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Seazzy. I am willing to bring my projector if you have only one and want to do parallel talks again as you did this time.—Anne Delong (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! We'll be in touch :-)

Seazzy (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Jones (artist); template; explanation

User:Seazzy left me a message about disrupting an editing session by making a reversion to an addition to an article with an under construction template by a new user in a session by you. I made the edit through Huggle. I first left a brief explanation and apology and thanks, thinking I had missed the template though stating that I was not sure I would have seen it in Huggle if it were not part of the most recent edit. After checking the history of the page, unless I am confused, I now see that the template was added after my one and only edit to the page. Another user made the later reversion after the template had been placed. It was a reversion to my previous version and perhaps that made some impression.

I do not leave this message to chastise or blame User:Seazzy, to blame the other user whom I have not named, to start some sort of dramafest or for any other reason than to say that it appears the message should not have been directed to me and I should not be discredited for the faux pas. But if I had made a mistake, I think the rest of my messages to User:Seazzy, in which I did not criticize the earlier message, were apt, civil and polite. I wrote that reminders to be vigilant are always useful in any event. I am sorry to trouble you with this but your name was mentioned in the message to me and I wanted you to have the fully story if this is on your radar. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Donner60. I was at the editathon, but I was not one of the organizers and was not in the room when this was going on; I was called in after the second revert. The people who organized the event were fearful that the art enthusiasts (many of whom hadn't edited Wikipedia before) would have their experience spoiled by having their edits reverted and wouldn't want to continue contributing. I tried to explain that reverting edits was common, and not to take it personally, and showed them how to leave messages on the talk pages to discuss the changes. A peek at the diffs leads me to agree that your reversion of the edit was completely appropriate, since the new editor removed another editor's work without explanation, and the construction template was indeed not in place at that time. I thank you for your civil response. This group is planning more editathons in the future, but the organizers and most of the participants will have more experience under their belts by then. Still, things don't always go as planned! —Anne Delong (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your understanding. I know a little about organizations and organization meetings so I think I understand what you are saying. I am glad that you are working on encouraging new editors because I believe new editors are necessary to continue the work of the project. People come and go depending on real life constraints, discouragement, tiring out or any number of reasons. New editors are needed to expand, improve and maintain the encyclopedia. They should be encouraged. I am not one of those who think Wikipedia is nearly complete or there is nothing worthwhile left to write about despite the wide coverage of topics already online. Many biographies and other subjects, which are notable even if perhaps more obscure, remain to be added. Many articles need to be expanded or improved and kept from deterioration.
I try to leave an extra message of explanation or welcome (with links) in addition to templates if I think that may encourage someone who does not appear to be acting maliciously or is just making some technical mistakes. I suppose some of these potentially constructive users get overlooked because of the way Huggle works. User:Seazzy has a good idea about putting a hold on reverts through Huggle for some period of time if a construction template is placed on the page. However, I am not a bot or computer expert so I do not know whether this is technically feasible. Donner60 (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard good things about Huggle, but I haven't tried it myself, so I can't comment. There are a lot of scripts and tools out there that leave automated messages, though, so I think that editors just have to get used to them. At any rate, there were a lot of enthusiastic people working on artists' pages, and just this one small hiccup, so the event was quite successful.—Anne Delong (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:California wildfires

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:California wildfires. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Double redirect

User:Avabkeating/sandbox is a double redirect. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GeoffreyT2000. Yes, I left the redirect deliberately so that if User:Avabkeating returned he/she would be able to read the text on the redirect page and find the edits in the page history for possible later creation of an article. The double redirection isn't occurring in mainspace, so it won't affect readers of the encyclopedia, just this one user and perhaps a reviewer. Sometimes new users don't realize that their edits have been moved, not deleted, and end up adding duplicate copies because they can't find the original.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anne Delong: Can you please fix the double redirect to redirect directly to Kostow Greenwood Architects? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GeoffreyT2000, since you ignored my explanation, and since bots regularly fix up double redirects after a period of time, I will be taking no action. In fact, I see that a bot has already done its work on this one. Next time, if you don't want to wait for the bot for some reason (???), why not just fix it yourself?—Anne Delong (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again

Toronto Light Opera
Thank you, user drumming up interest in Bluegrass music, for quality articles on the Toronto Light Opera and its people, for Rigoletto... in Bluegrass, for rescuing articles and for your tireless effort around articles for creation, discussing, moving articles and expanding, for posts that make me smile , - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 985th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Ganesh Chaturthi

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ganesh Chaturthi. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rory Te' Tigo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Instrument maker (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) 10:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup at Ryerson U., Oct. 15

Anne, if you happen to be free, it would be great to see you at a Women in Architecture meetup I'm helping to organize next Thursday (Oct. 15) at Ryerson U. Artchivist1 (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Artchivist1. I should be able to make it. Let me know what I can do to help.—Anne Delong (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, great to hear! If you could be on hand for any of the time to answer more advanced editing questions, that would be wonderful. I am doing beginner tutorials at 10:30 and 1. Would be glad of your presence whenever you can make it. Thanks! Artchivist1 (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Artchivist1, that works out well for me; I have a meeting in Oshawa at 7:30 so I should get back in time. After attending the editathon at the AGO, a couple of things come to mind which you may or may not consider working into your presentation:
  • Wikipedia editing is different from most kinds of writing. Usually an author creates a work independently or maybe with a partner. However, each Wikipedia article is made by members of a community of volunteers who usually haven't met, and each contributor must show respect for the work of others and develop respect in the community in turn. This means that edit summaries and talk pages are very important, and your students need to understand this. An editor who doesn't use them may be considered rude or at the very least inept.
  • An issue that is rarely relevant to visual artists, but which may come up with architects is that many of them work in companies. There shouldn't be two articles with almost the same information. For example, M. Jones and Z. Smith start a company "Jones & Smith, Architects". They design lots of excellent buildings together. Instead of an article about each person, Wikipedia would have one article about the company, with information about the two women in it. Then two redirect article titles would be made "M. Jones" and "Z. Smith", pointing to the company article.
  • When starting a new article, there are several choices: (1) Sandbox - this is just for messing around and trying out to see how things will look (2) User space (ie. User:Anne Delong/Whatever) - you can gather material, start and start forming the article, and other editors will leave it alone unless it has serious problems such as copyright violations or looking like advertising (3) Draft space - works like user space except that other editors may come a long and join in. Both of these are not picked up by search engines and so are read mainly by other editors, so it doesn't matter if you save in the middle of a sentence, or your formatting looks really bad, etc. (4)Article space - To make a new article here you really need to be already familiar with Wikipedia policies, because if what you write doesn't follow them, it may be deleted within minutes, or sent to a discussion page for later deletion. This is because what you write there is indexed immediately and reflects on the integrity of the encyclopedia.

Okay, I went on longer than I had planned; please feel free to ignore it if you have other material that you planned to introduce instead.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anne, thanks. This is all really good advice -- I have been thinking along some of these lines but it is good to have it laid out clearly. The aspect of architectural practice and redundancy had not occurred to me (I haven't yet worked on architecture on wp). So this is very constructive, thanks. -- Artchivist1 (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Artchivist1, can you tell me details of the lecture location, and also say what course the lecture is for? You can use e-mail if you don't want to post it onwiki.—Anne Delong (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a lecture or course, just a meetup to coincide with the Guggathon Women in Architecture events. See Wikipedia:Meetup/Toronto/Women_in_Architecture for details including location. -- Artchivist1 (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anne, I've just learned that the event start time has been moved to 11:00am (so I'll do tutorials at 11:30 and 1:30). Apologies for late notice, but I just found out myself! -- Artchivist1 (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. No problem.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
June sends her thanks for all your wonderful help yesterday! Me too. Great to have you there. --Artchivist1 (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Carly Fiorina

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carly Fiorina. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Garmston, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cognitive theory (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) 10:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 12 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American football WikiProjects

Anne, per your edit at Talk:Mike Priefer, please note that anyone who has coached or played in American college football or in the National Football League falls within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject College football and Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League, respectively, and not within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject American football. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jweiss11. I presume you fixed it. I am pretty ignorant about football - I just rescued the page from being deleted as a stale draft. I am puzzled as to why a page that begins "is an American football special teams coordinator" isn't of interest to WikiProject American football. However, at least my edit attracted the attention of someone who knew what to do.—Anne Delong (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:The Stone Roses (album)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Stone Roses (album). Legobot (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Young

I have closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Chris Young Producer as delete. Given how self-promotional and unsourced it was, I don't think there is anything to merge to Draft:Chris Young (music producer), which was written two years earlier (Jan 2013). The content was curiously different - I had to check back to be sure it was the same guy. No mention of Izzy Gold Records, which features largely in the draft.

I would normally flag File:Chris Young Producer (12).jpg for deletion on Commons as out of project scope, but I'll leave it in case you want to try to make something of the draft. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, JohnCD. I agree that there was no content worth merging. I just worded it badly - I should have said "I would have suggested" instead of "I would suggest". Sorry for the confusion. I guess he's "moved" on from Izzy Gold, but of course, Wikipedia never forgets, he he... —Anne Delong (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

08:11:50, 19 October 2015 review of submission by House of Ou


Submitted again. House of Ou (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, House of Ou. I have edited this article quite a bit, so I shouldn't review it. I have added a couple of references. It seems, though, that the website is mainly mentioned in articles about its founder, Eunice Olsen. Not many independent newspapers and magazines not connected with Ms Olson (as I see that you are from your username) are writing about it. The reviewers may decide that it isn't well-known enough for its own article. If the article is declined again, my suggestion is that you add a section about it in the Eunice Olsen article. I can then make redirect title "WomenTalkTV" pointing to that article. That way, in any case, some information about the website will be in the encyclopedia.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Arnold J. Sameroff has been accepted

Arnold J. Sameroff, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-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.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Subhanallah (song)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Subhanallah (song) —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Worldbruce (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Message

Hi Anne Delong, I dropped you a message a few days ago, just checking if it might have gone into the ether. Thanks, Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rui Gabriel Correia. I did receive you message but I didn't reply. Your message didn't come through the Wikipedia email system or to the e-mail address that I gave Wikipedia. I have had some difficulty with fraudulent e-mails from Wikipedia editors (probably) and even people impersonating me by sending e-mails to other editors pretending to be me and offering to do paid editing! Also, I prefer not to discuss other editors off-wiki.

Now that you have contacted me here, I can say that you should not "out" an editor; nor is it necessary. If a book source is being added in an appropriate way, to back up a fact, and if it's a reliable source by Wikipedia standards (published by a known publishing house with an editor as opposed to self-published), then it shouldn't matter who added it.

If a source is being overused, you can try to balance it by adding more and better sources for the same fact; there can be a good reason for removing a citation if there are several clearer or more authoritative sources for the same fact per WP:CITEKILL. If it's being used to add opinion, then the text should reflect that it's an opinion, and it should only be added if the author is a recognized authority on the subject.

If a book source is being added in order to promote the book itself, (see WP:CITESPAM), especially if it's a self-published source or one published by an organization with an agenda, it needn't be the author of the book who's doing the promotion - it could be someone else with a conflict of interest - a publishing company or a store selling the book, or a friend, relative or colleague of the author, etc., so it's not good to make assumptions. So, if the adding of a book seems inappropriate or promotional, it's better to focus discussion on that. I hope this helps.—Anne Delong (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anne Delong. Thanks for your detailed response. I will come back to it later, if nacessary. For now, I would just like to add that I rarely do anything off-wiki (actually mostly to establish real life contact with other editors) and this is the second time that I do so to discuss an editor (the first time was about a sock investigation). The reason for writing off-wiki was to safeguard the anonymity of the editor and not indirectly "out" that editor to anyone putting two and two together. I wrote to a second admin, who suggested I take it to COIN. In the meantime, I have found more disturbing practices, but it would be difficult to discuss openly without "outing" the editor. I will think about this for a while and decide on it later.
PS, you say the "message didn't come through the Wikipedia email system or to the e-mail address that I gave Wikipedia". This is odd, as I made use of the "Email this editor" feature, which opens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Anne_Delong. Perhaps the address on record is outdated? Thanks for your help, I will let you know. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Frogman

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Frogman. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harbor House of Central Florida, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public school (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) 09:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Anne Delong:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – North America1000 23:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Sent to users on my mailing list. To opt-out forever, just remove your name.

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
My congratulations on your amazing accomplishments at Wikipedia! I am immensely enjoying some of your creations. Natalie.Desautels (talk) 12:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some feedback please; your expert advice would be greatly appreciated

@Anne Delong and Checkingfax:

Hello Anne Delong,

My congratulations on your amazing accomplishments at Wikipedia! (I sent you a much deserved barnstar to add to your collection : )

I have been referred to you by Checkingfax; indeed, you are highly recommended by him! I have created an article on classical and flamenco guitar and atonal music in general and on internationally renowned Canadian guitarist Michael Laucke in particular. So far, I'm delighted that it has been ushered in live, and several editors have sent some nice comments my way; still, I feel improvements in style remain to be made and Checkingfax mentioned you could perhaps help us improve it.

I am proud to have contributed about several hundred hours of research. We are approaching 600 edits, about half of which are the incredible work of Checkingfax, and 13 other editors have also helped

I am just loving the Wikipedia adventure! I am a born perfectionist, and need to see things through to their logical conclusion, that means ...excellence. I am "polyglote" (multilingual); there is little difference to me between a few languages. So after this English version, I will have the pleasure of making a French one with different sources, and then a Spanish one.

My hope is to get an English version with improved syntax and style, smoothness and readability; indeed, this would be most inspiring for the translation and re-working into my other language versions.

The article references, of which there are over 100, are perfect according to various software like reFill and Proveit. Thus, my questions concern things like,

  • - Is the first paragraph in the lead too long?
  • - Does the lead have too much detail; should it be more general?
  • - In striving really hard for a neutral point of view, have I made it acceptable to Wikipedia but boring?
  • - Are the sections in the best order?

I do hope that this might interest you, that I have piqued your curiosity and that you can help me make a better version; even if time is short, as it always is, any feedback from you will help and be much appreciated, to be sure.

Cordially,

Kindest regards, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


P.S. @Robvanvee: @Checkingfax, GrammarFascist, Bgwhite, and Vipinhari: I am pinging several editors who have helped improve this article, just to keep them in the loop. --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Natalie.Desautels: Thanks for the kind words. I can see that you have put a lot of time and effort into the wording of the article. I can also see from your post here that you are a person who loves to write and whose bubbling enthusiasm fills her writing; sometimes this is a bit of a handicap when writing an encyclopedia article, which shouldn't contain emotionally coloured words and other promotional language. I certainly admire and enjoy classical guitar music. I will answer your questions:

@Anne Delong and Checkingfax:
Hello Anne Delong, Thank you so much for taking the time to send feedback my way; it is very much appreciated, and then some. Indeed, this is sorely-needed and extremely helpful towards improving my Wikipedia skills in general and the Michael Laucke page in particular. I hope your practice went as you wish. As Shakespeare said, "Music is the trade of Love" and you are fortunate to be able to experience this.
I've read with pleasure a few more of the articles you worked on, and continue to enjoy them very much.
I agree that passion is a handicap when writing an encyclopedia article; one more impulse that is our own and that which we can control, Epectitus not withstanding :). I have found this area can be confusing, as many Wikipedia pages in the classical music field are rife with enthusiastic superlatives, such as "legendary" Andres Segovia, Paco de Lucia referred to as "one of history's greatest guitarists", and so on. Julian Bream was called "the greatest guitarist in the world" but I see that has been removed. (I would agree that he might very well be, but that's certainly not neutral, as it were). I've gathered hundreds of articles on Michael Laucke, so I am in a position to prove every second word, it seems, but that would probably look awful. But I digress : ) I am replying to each point below in blue.
  • Is the first paragraph in the lead too long and does it contain too much detail? - The whole lead is about ten times too long. The lead should be a few sentences only, and should summarize material that is expressed in more detail in later sections, and perhaps include one sentence about something for which the artist is particularly well known, to assert notability. The most common format after that is "Early life and education", containing events up to the beginning of professional performance, then "Career" containing events after that. Organizing information chronologically instead of starting with the most notable events is part of what makes the article neutral.
Thank you so much for some very valuable points! I will certainly be considering all of them—your tips on the lead, notability, subsequent sections ("Early life and education", "Career", and organizing information chronologically to impart neutrality,)—all this is really very much appreciated. A user called Changedforbetter also contacted me to help develop our lead section as this is her specialty (and I need all the help I can get:). She has actually brought a large number of articles to GA status, so I am eager to see how she reworks the lead and learn from it first-hand. I'm really too new here so the best route is to defer to other editor's opinions.
  • In striving really hard for a neutral point of view, have I made it acceptable to Wikipedia but boring? No. Encyclopedia articles are intended to be factual, not exciting, and should contain no opinion at all. What you have written is not yet close to being neutral. Phrases such as "highly anticipated", "most distinguished", "finest teachers" should be removed. Also, the article is full of quotes; quotes should be used very sparingly, and not to promote the subject. This is called "cherry picking" - choosing from among the many things a person may have said about the artist, and picking out the most positive and praising part to quote. Most of these should be removed and summarized, just noting that he received a positive review from x, or was praised by x for a particular skill, or some such thing. This will make the article shorter and more readable as well as more neutral. There's no need for all of the promotional quotes in the reference section either; you've properly identified the sources, so people who want to know what's said in them can find them and read them.
Again, what you have kindly taken the time to write is of great interest to me and again, my sincere thanks. I have read about neutrality, and I guess this is still a challenge for me to achieve. This begs a question: the adjectives "highly anticipated", "most distinguished", "finest teachers" and so on all come from newspaper articles, such as The Washington Post. I personally have no problem at all removing them, but would it be considered biased, or promotional, to simply quote these papers? I guess the answer is that if one quotes too many, than it appears to be promotional. Is that a correct assumption? As well, I understand your very good point of making the article shorter and more readable as well as more neutral; I guess one relies on others at my stage to achieve this I think, or perhaps I can take a stab at it. Regarding quotes in references, I did want to make it easier on the reader and not ask them to wade through full articles; I wanted to sort of take them by the hand and guide them just to the good stuff, the relevant quote. But you have made another good point to consider and we'll have to work on this as well. I love your comment "Most of these should be removed and summarized, just noting that he received a positive review from x, or was praised by x for a particular skill" and I see how I can have a go at this, putting the accent on a particular skill and leaving the quote in the reference; ...exciting idea!
  • Order of the sections - The lists, such as discography material, should probably be at the end, and the following paragraphs moved up. A lot of readers stop reading if they are not interested in the table material, not realizing that there is more text below. This is just my opinion, though.
I was never at ease with the order of the tables, but it just lurked in my subconscious until you mentioned it. The tables should definitely be at the end; I agree that readers stop reading if they are not interested in the table material
  • Other observations - There is some WP:CITEKILL - for example, when there is already an awards section, there is no need to cite six sources to the general statement that he has won awards - pick out the best two. In the awards section, some of the items are not awards. If he performed at a particularly well-known venue, or was praised by a respected critic, this can be noted in the Career section in chronological order.
Thank you kindly once again. To clarify, the awards section is actually called "Awards, Honors and Prizes", so it comprises more than just awards. Checkingfax is going to encapsulate the six references into one, since I haven't had time to study the code to accomplish this. But yes, another very good point to consider. I think a Career section is a very good idea too, and an editor suggested that a classical musician might have a critical acclaim section, but I have not seen an example of this type of section, so that's probably not a good idea, not neutral I would think.

I'm sorry to have had to point out so many needed changes. Please don't be discouraged - the research you have done has all been worthwhile; you've uncovered a great many useful facts. I see that you have also learned quite a bit about formatting. I have to go to a band practice now, so I will leave it there. Please remember that I am just one editor, and if you had asked someone else you might have received somewhat different advice.—Anne Delong (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, certainly nothing to be sorry about. You have helped tremendously! Thank you for your kind encouragement as well. It was not hard to learn basic Wiki language as I have some programming skills in asp, asp.net, php and of course good old DOS. I will take your advice to heart and ask other editors for more feedback to be able to see things from the broadest perspective and to "bring others into the conflict resolution process" :) (Sun Tzu's Art of War). Thanks you once again for your valuable insight, time, and kind attention; ...very appreciated indeed. All my very best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 09:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cc. @Robvanvee: @GrammarFascist, Bgwhite, and Vipinhari: --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 09:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, again, [User:Natalie.Desautels|Natalie.Desautels]]. Glad to see I haven't discouraged you. A few points raised by your comments:
  • About promotional language in other articles: Yes, it's true that there are many of Wikipedia's five million articles which don't follow all of the policies at this time. That's because it is being created by an incredibly diverse collection of editors, most of whom don't take the time to read the policies before plunging in and creating an article! However, these are being improved by experienced editors as quickly as they are found. There is even a policy about that, called Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, which, in exaggerated form, means that just because there are poor articles in the encyclopedia doesn't mean we should create more.
  • About promotional language from sources: Articles in newspapers, magazines and books, especially those about creative subjects, often use colourful language. That's the authors' job - to present their opinion as well as the facts, pique their readers' interest by painting a visual or auditory picture, and so sell their publications. An author might write "The huge mastiff took the small shivering kitten in its slavering jaws and shook it, tossing away the crumpled body.". Wikipedia would say "The cat died after being attacked by a dog."
  • About overciting: As you intuitively realized, having citation numbers everywhere is disruptive to the reader, and also long rows of them for one fact is a form of promotion, used to make a particular fact look import. Another reason, though, for not having a long list of citations for one fact is to lead the reader to the most appropriate sources instead of having them wade though large numbers of unnecessarily repetitive material. Encapsulating them will not help with this problem, and is especially unnecessary if references are already used as citations elsewhere in the article. One or two particularly reliable and independent sources are better than a long list of varying quality. Editors who want to promote an article have been known to try to "dazzle" other editors by adding large numbers of citations to small mentions, upcoming event listings, postings by the artist's agent or publisher, postings on personal blogs or social media, etc., to hide the fact that there are no proper news reports, books, magazine articles, etc. to be found. As long as you have enough to demonstrate that the subject warrants an article (and you do), a short list of good sources is better than an exhaustive list.
  • About mentioning truly famous people: Yes, no one will dispute that someone like Segovia, for example, can correctly be called "famous". However, what is the purpose of the adjective in the particular article? If it is to indicate that the subject of the article must also be famous by association, then that's inappropriate. I'll give an example from my own genre, bluegrass music. The founder of this genre is a fellow named Bill Monroe. Yes, he is famous. It's amazing how many times he's mentioned in other musicians' articles - they have shared a stage (performed at the same festival), sung some of his many compositions (which anyone may do), performed at the festival he founded (which thousands have), were his protegé (took some mandolin lessons from him), were influenced by his style (listened to his records), etc. This is bad enough without unnecessarily adding "famous" or "amazing" or "legendary" every time he is mentioned. For the few readers who take the time to read bluegrass article and don't already know this, his name is linked to the article about him.

Okay, enough. I do go on....—Anne Delong (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reflections on, and appreciation for, your kind advice, and its implementation

@Anne Delong and Checkingfax:
Hello again Anne Delong,
I trust you are well ! I have studied your excellent suggestions deeper, absorbed their meaning and set about implementing most of them. Once again I wish to extend my appreciation for your precious time, and for sharing your expertise. Your suggestions are immensely clear, and make simple some otherwise complicated concepts; I find they facilitate article development. I take pleasure in outlining below the points I am enforcing.
So, I will respond here on which particular points I have culled; perhaps some readers will find this brief summary useful. I have answered each of your most recent responses in green below. I guess I should try to avoid backlog; it seems ungainly responding this way and trying to make it look pretty, format-wise.
  • Leads should summarize material that is expressed in more detail in later sections, including one sentence about something for which the artist is particularly well known, to assert notability. After that is "Early life and education", up to the beginning of professional performance, then "Career" containing events after that. Organize information chronologically.
  • Article should contain no opinion at all, just noting that the artist received a positive review from x to make the article shorter and more readable as well as more neutral.
  • Avoid WP:CITEKILL by picking out the best two citations. If the musician performed at a particularly well-known venue, or was praised by a respected critic, this can be noted in the Career section in chronological order.
So I have used my sandbox (un-indexed and un-findable by Google) for a revised lead. I have condensed and started to implement changes based on your sound advice, and more. I refer you to the highlights in green below which address the most recent comments.

Most recent responses in green below

  • About promotional language in other articles: Yes, it's true that there are many of Wikipedia's five million articles which don't follow all of the policies at this time. That's because it is being created by an incredibly diverse collection of editors, most of whom don't take the time to read the policies before plunging in and creating an article! However, these are being improved by experienced editors as quickly as they are found. There is even a policy about that, called Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, which, in exaggerated form, means that just because there are poor articles in the encyclopedia doesn't mean we should create more.
Great point here: "...poor articles in the encyclopedia doesn't mean we should create more"
  • About promotional language from sources: Articles in newspapers, magazines and books, especially those about creative subjects, often use colourful language. That's the authors' job - to present their opinion as well as the facts, pique their readers' interest by painting a visual or auditory picture, and so sell their publications. An author might write "The huge mastiff took the small shivering kitten in its slavering jaws and shook it, tossing away the crumpled body.". Wikipedia would say "The cat died after being attacked by a dog."
That's fantastic! I Think that example should appear on Wiki help pages; it makes a great point, and it's humorous as well; I love it! "The huge mastiff took the small shivering kitten in its slavering jaws and shook it, tossing away the crumpled body.". Wikipedia would say "The cat died after being attacked by a dog."
  • About overciting: As you intuitively realized, having citation numbers everywhere is disruptive to the reader, and also long rows of them for one fact is a form of promotion, used to make a particular fact look import. Another reason, though, for not having a long list of citations for one fact is to lead the reader to the most appropriate sources instead of having them wade though large numbers of unnecessarily repetitive material. Encapsulating them will not help with this problem, and is especially unnecessary if references are already used as citations elsewhere in the article. One or two particularly reliable and independent sources are better than a long list of varying quality. Editors who want to promote an article have been known to try to "dazzle" other editors by adding large numbers of citations to small mentions, upcoming event listings, postings by the artist's agent or publisher, postings on personal blogs or social media, etc., to hide the fact that there are no proper news reports, books, magazine articles, etc. to be found. As long as you have enough to demonstrate that the subject warrants an article (and you do), a short list of good sources is better than an exhaustive list.This is what I retain here; most excellent again. " unnecessarily repetitive material ...is especially unnecessary if references are already used as citations elsewhere in the article. One or two particularly reliable and independent sources are better" ..."), a short list of good sources is better than an exhaustive list."
  • About mentioning truly famous people: Yes, no one will dispute that someone like Segovia, for example, can correctly be called "famous". However, what is the purpose of the adjective in the particular article? If it is to indicate that the subject of the article must also be famous by association, then that's inappropriate. I'll give an example from my own genre, bluegrass music. The founder of this genre is a fellow named Bill Monroe. Yes, he is famous. It's amazing how many times he's mentioned in other musicians' articles - they have shared a stage (performed at the same festival), sung some of his many compositions (which anyone may do), performed at the festival he founded (which thousands have), were his protegé (took some mandolin lessons from him), were influenced by his style (listened to his records), etc. This is bad enough without unnecessarily adding "famous" or "amazing" or "legendary" every time he is mentioned. For the few readers who take the time to read bluegrass article and don't already know this, his name is linked to the article about him. See discussion. This is the culprit that triggered the discussion :)

Discussion

Also, I would love to have your thoughts on the adjective "legendary" we talked about, based on my following thought processes; I would also like to show why I think we are talking about valuable knowledge here, not fame by association or otherwise. The world of music is divided in such a way that all "serious" music (jazz, classical, opera) is 1% of the total world interest in it (meaning income=1%). So if a symphonic orchestra in a major city sells out every night, the income represents a small fraction of the operating costs; thus the need for government and other grants to continue to promote culture. An example music historians like to give is that when the Beatles disbanded, 26 orchestras in England went down with them; in other words, the 99% income generated from popular music is used to keep culture alive. (Btw, in France, the government budget for culture was 16 times grater than in Canada). Why do I mention this. Well, I am not really rambling; I do have a point to make here : ) Andres Segovia played guitar in public for 80 years, from 14 years old to 94, at 200 concerts per year in every country imaginable until 85 years of age. (He had a heart attack performing at Carnegie hall at 94). He was hailed as the greatest classical guitarist in the last 200 years, and so on. (For the record, he's not my favorite) (Also of interest: He signed until he would have been 99, but didn't make it). He was the Picasso of the guitar and was in Time magazine when he died. The word "legend" is of course appropriate, but few people on the street will know of him - - - the "why" of this is because we are back to the 1% who like "serious" (don't like this word much) music. So, the guitarist Michael Laucke won a competition with 200 other guitarists to study with the great master Segovia; then Laucke ended up being selected by Segovia to perform before 25 million viewers at the Met in New York for PBS and afterwards studied with him. We are talking about the transmitting of knowledge, what Wikipedia is all about. All this means little if the reader doesnt know Segovia's historical importance, without knowing where this knowledge came from. (Of course, I totally agree with you that credit is given on its own merit, not merely by association. No one is saying Laucke is Segovia by association; that would be absurd). I think, in this case, it would simply save users time to add the straightforward adjective "legendary" to Segovia's mention; it would be undeniably factual, save time (not everyone wants to wade about in the citation section), would be neutral and un-promotional. Adjectives of this sort are unnecessary for the 99% audience, as in the case of, say, Elvis, Elton, Beatles, and so on. In short, why is this association of Laucke to this man important; well, Segovia was a guitar legend and Laucke studied with him and was transmitted special, historically valuable guitar knowledge. It piques the general reader's curiosity. Musicians and classical guitarists also might be interested in what Laucke learned from a legend who passed on a classical guitar tradition going back 500 years. (Well, ok, since 1800, but the guitar's relatives, the lute and vihuela, go back to 1455). We also avoid what often seems silly when we hear about a "living legend", since Segovia is dead.
I would feel privileged if you would share your thoughts on this subject; I mean, you already did, but if you feel like elaborating a bit in light of the information I just mentioned, that would be great! Thanks so much. all my very best, --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 05:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cc. @Robvanvee, GrammarFascist, Bgwhite, and Vipinhari:
Natalie.Desautels, "legendary" is about as non-neutral as you can get, and not necessary in the context you mention. It is not the purpose of the article to demonstrate the importance of Laucke, or the music he plays, or even Segovia, only to provide facts. It would take a pretty clueless person to read that hundreds of musicians entered a contest to be instructed by a musician and not clue in that the instructor must be highly in demand. If Laucke then performed at the Met (well, it seems that he participated in a lesson by Segovia held at the museum of art, not performed a concert at the opera house as I first assumed from your phrasing), and this was broadcast on PBS, those are facts and can be stated plainly. You'd need a very reliable and independent source before adding that 25 million people were watching it - that's more than the most popular prime time television series last year. "Historically valuable" is an opinion, and that should be left for an article in a magazine or book. Did you notice that the article about Laucke is twice the length of the one about Andrés Segovia? It's so long that users with slow connections would have trouble reading it.
You should stop looking for reasons to include colourful and promotional language, cherry-picked quotes, name dropping, etc., and just not do it. Each time you do, it takes up other editors' time removing it and/or arguing against it, and slows down the development of the encyclopedia. Eventually other editors will assume that you joined Wikipedia to promote Mr. Laucke instead of to write a neutral article. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


@Anne Delong and Checkingfax:
Hello again Anne Delong,
Thanks again for the help. The word "legendary" as well as other "promotional" words are deleted, as is "historically valuable" and other such nonsense. We are filling out an Early Years section, and then Early career as you suggested. The article is getting more neutral, lead is shorter, citations fewer...
Just to clear up some proven facts about the Metropolitan Museum concert with Laucke and Segovia. Laucke was one of seven winners and did perform in this film – it was not merely a lesson. So this should be stated factually; the sequence was as follows:
  • Newspapers claim that between 1200 and 2000 students sent their tapes to the University of Southern California so that a committee could start the elimination process
  • 57 guitarists were selected by the committee. They presented themselves at the Metropolitan Museum of Art to further continue the elimination process
  • Segovia alone was to choose 18 participants; 11 benefited from a master class in the morning, and seven perforedm in the PBS film during the evening, as you can see here
  • Laucke performed a 25 minute work by Manuel Ponce; he did not receive a lesson that evening but later on in Geneva.
So these are the verifiable facts as they appear in newspaper articles, here, and here, and many others.
Regarding the viewing audience of 18 or 25 million viewers that was reported, this is a ridiculous figure! I'm a bit perplexed and uncomfortable as to what to do; this is what is reported, yet it is not realistic; does one report the facts nonetheless? Critic emeritus Eric McLean of The Gazette habitually phoned in to different sources to verify his information, so this is well researched information. So even though the sources have a strong basis in fact, I would feel more comfortable just leaving this part out. The other facts surrounding this event are absolutely solid, and I would keep them
Thanks again. --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 04:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maggie Campbell-Culver, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mount Edgcumbe (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) 12:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Old article history from other topics

Hello Anne Delong, as you often deal with AfC issues, could you help me with a question please? I just found the article Mayam Mahmoud, that was stored in Wikipedia namespace at Wikipedia:Mayam Mahmoud (I assume by accident). I moved the article to regular article space and cleaned it up a bit. But now I just saw, that the article's history contains a lot of "nonsensical" old entries about unrelated previous sandbox topics and other drafts. Is such unrelated history usually kept in those cases? Or maybe I shouldn't have moved the article in the first place? It looks like a legit notable topic though. GermanJoe (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, GermanJoe. It looks like this page was part of a student project. The student started creating an article in his/her sandbox, blanked it and started a new topic. This is one of several problems which arise from using a sandbox to create an article, instead of for its intended purpose of just experimenting with wikicode. It looks as though the student finished the assignment and didn't know where to move it. There was another copy at User:Bowdch01, which I blanked and replaced with a link to the version you worked on. You were right to move it - it certainly didn't belong in "Wikipedia:". I can delete the old diffs about the other topic, but I'm not sure if I should or not, so I am going to ask at the help desk because it's likely I'll come across this again.—Anne Delong (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on User:Ianmurray5/sandbox

Hi Anne, thanks for your help with my Alley & MacLellan Ltd page,learning from you, I have started a new one for a different company in my sandbox, Not finished yet, but would love to get your thoughts/comments on it. Not sure when to submit as, rather like the Alley & MacLellan, as I research the Worcestershire County Archives further I hope to find more evidential information. Thanks again, Ianmurray5 (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ianmurray5. Some thoughts:
  • The sandbox is great for testing out formatting, etc., but a serious article-under-construction should be (1) on a named subpage in your user space (ie, Ianmurray5/Name of article), or, if you are hoping others will notice it and contribute, (2) at Draft:Name of article. That way you can have several drafts on the go if you want to.
  • Not all companies are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. There must be fairly extensive material written independently (not inhouse company histories, advertisements, directory listings, etc.) in news reports, magazine article or books. Because these companies are chosen for coverage by journalists and other authors, and because the resulting text is vetted by an editor, Wikipedia uses this as a test of what topics should have articles, and what information should be in them.
  • If you aren't finding much, starting a new article may not be the best approach. It's just as helpful to the encyclopedia to add to existing articles. For example, if a famous person starts a small company that didn't get much coverage, a paragraph about the company can be added to his or her page (with a reference). In reverse, if person is known mainly for involvement with a well-known company, a paragraph about him or her on the company page may be appropriate.
  • When you find a good write-up, remember to include the original title of the article, as well as the date and page number. Another editor should be able to find the source and read it.
  • As well as your archives, don't neglect online sources such as Google Books and online history magazines (not personal webpages or social media sites- these aren't fact-checked). If you are an archivist in the UK, you may have access to the British Newspaper Archives. That's a great source for historical information.
Good luck with your project.—Anne Delong (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for your help. You are my guardian angel wiki. Love, jdxzhu 19:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for catching and removing the commercial book site. I appreciate your help a great deal! jdxzhu 02:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chitra Weddikkara, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western Institute of Technology (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) 13:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anne_Delong&oldid=690850200"