This is an archive of past discussions with User:Anne Delong. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
(talk page stalker) With respect to The Banner as soon as the page was submitted using the AfC template here and there is a reasonable chance at acceptance, the page is moved into AfC space. Please look to ShamDela as to why they thought the page was ready for AfC to take over. Please observe that the language you have used so far is pejorative and more disruptive than the perceived slight. Hasteur (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I have never even had the intention to send this article to AfC because I knew that the article was not ready/unsuitable. And suddenly, without anybody even telling me, it is moved out of my userspace. Can you imagine that is am severely not happy? I want that article restored where it was, without the AfC-stuff. The Bannertalk19:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear The Banner: The reason that I moved the article into Afc space and reviewed it was because it had a large yellow "Request for review" template on the top. I was unaware that it was not you who placed it there, and so your surprise is understandable. However, sorry, now that attention has been called to the article, there are some issues. The article was supposed to have been deleted after a deletion discussion because it didn't pass the notability requirements. Instead, it was moved to your user space, I presume at your request so that you could improve it. In fact, the article has not changed since then, and had not been edited for a year and a half when submitted. User pages that look like articles, but aren't, fall foul of WP:FAKEARTICLE. You may not have been aware of this, but now that you are, if there are still no references to show that this topic passes notability requirements you should request its deletion yourself. You can always keep a copy at home on a word processor in case you find good material later. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
To be true, I forgot about this article. That is why I did not work on it. Could you put it back where it belongs, with a noindex on it? The Bannertalk20:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Update on Simply Gluten Free Magazine page
Hi Anne,
I just got your message about my submission for the page Simply Gluten Free Magazine. I have made some changes and have a few more things to sort out and then I will resubmit it again for your review. This is my first time creating pages on wikipedia, so I don't know all the rules just yet but I am learning. Thank you for being kind about the edits, I will do my best to give it a more neutral tone.
I also have another page that is already up (I didn't realize I could make drafts first, so my first page was instantly put up somehow), it is for Carol Kicinski. I received feedback on that one from another user and I changed a few things, added more references, etc. but didn't hear anything else about whether or not I fixed it well enough. Would you be willing to check that page out and tell me what you think? I wouldn't want it to get deleted if I missed a few things.
Dear M.Renae: You can make articles either way. By submitting a draft you get feedback, and make sure that once the article is in place it won't be deleted as inappropriate. However, once you know a few policies about no copyright violations, independent sources, no advertising, etc., you can make the pages directly. If you want feedback about an article that's already in the encyclopedia, you might try leaving a message (and joining) Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink and Wikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitness. (I hope the references you added were to independent sources, such as reviews, news reports, etc., not to press releases or related companies.) Good luck, and I hope that you will continue to contribute to the encyclopedia. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear AnaMony: Welcome to Wikipedia! I am not sure that I understand your question. I reviewed the article that you submitted, and reported that it is not suitable to be a Wikipedia article, because it is about your own thoughts and ideas. Wikipedia only has articles about subjects that have been written about in other published sources, such as news reports, magazine articles or books. Any of the reviewers here at Wikipedia will tell you the same. Did you mean that you submitted it for review accidentally, or as a test? If so, I can either delete it or move it to your user page for you. If you submit another article in the future, any one of Wikipedia's experienced editors my choose to review it. If you edit an existing article, be sure to include a reference to a reliable, published source (see WP:Referencing for beginners); then other editors who like to write about that topic may discuss your edit and make further changes to the article. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Benner article references
Hello Anne Delong.... Would appreciate a comment on this, when possible. I've been adding references to the career section of article David G. Benner, working to clear the "unreliability" warning that the section had no references. It has ten now, up from zero (I'd misunderstood WP guidelines and postings on citing CVs). Am still working to cross-reference the CV data with independent third-party print sources and would greatly appreciate a word of direction. You and Roger(Dodger 67) dealt with the article earlier. Is that career section sturdy enough yet, or almost there? Also, if an item of information isn't in print but only online (such as list of faculty appts at Rohr Institute, or WorldCat listings), that still is a "bare URL" that might evaporate. Not sure what to do about those. Hope you can help. JaneFaber (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear JaneFaber: I will answer first about "bare URLs". If a reference is only available on line, you should make a proper reference to it just as if it were a printed source: the name of the person who wrote the article (if available), the title of the article, the URL of the website, the name of the "publisher" (who's website is it?), what date was it written (if available), and, in addition, because website contents change, the date of access. This will help with your worry about disappearing web content, because you are basically attesting that it was there on that date, even if it isn't later. Sometimes old web material can be accessed through the "Wayback Machine".
About WorldCat and other similar listings: these are indexes, not documents, and I don't see why you would use them as a reference. It's the actual book, magazine or newspaper article itself that is listed in the index that is the source of information. Citing WorldCat would be like citing a Google search.
Hello Anne.... Yes, good counsel. This isn't a generally a subject area I research, but I thought it would make a useful article. Have been working on 1590s privateers, so article sources were unfamiliar. Your checklist for referencing non-print sources is practical in any field, and it's clearer for WP purposes than Chicago 15th's section. I'll go to the library again before writing to Dodger67. Thanks for mentioning Wayback Machine. Fair winds. JaneFaber (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
(ec)Found it and removed the tag as the bare URL problem no longer exists. However the references still have problems; some references cite multiple sources, please separate them, each source should be footnoted separately; don't hide the URLs in "here" links, make them directly readable in the footnotes; don't "explain" the reference in the footnote, just give the details of the source, you can include a quote if it is really necessary. Quotes are usually only provided if the source is not in English or very difficult to access such as online sources behind a paywall or a book so rare that only one or a few libraries have a copy. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
from John Rester Zodrow re: article ready
Hi, Anne,
have finished readying the article and have submitted
it for review.
I think it is finally there--many thanks to you.
Don't remove the code on the top of this talk page. It consists of commands to a robot that will archive it neatly by month. Let it run for a few days until the bot "notices" the commands and performs the work.
Also, don't use the divisions you used for the months. It breaks up certain intricacies used by the system and hides the Table of Content of your talk page which makes it even harder to navigate!
Do you have a link to the project organized by Ocaasi that you are referring to? Would like to see your interview as well. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Here is another link to the new round of proposals. Ocaasi is an advisor on the one about mentorship. By the way, if you think any of these proposals are worthwhile, feel free to add a supporting comment, since popularity within the community may be a factor in who gets the grants.
Hello Anne, pleased to meet you. I have suggested we take Ahnoneemoos literally, over here. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Reviewing_the_Anne_Delong_phenomena They told me they might be tied up with real-life-business until sometime in December, so I figured I would just ask you directly if you'd like/mind/dislike your early wikiverse time to be the subject of a lessons-learned after-action-review sort of thing, informally over on the talkpage of WP:RETENTION. No problem if you wish otherwise, as I go to some pains to explain. Anyways, you may reply at WP:RETENTION if you wish, or ping me on my talkpage if you have any questions or concerns or whatever. Thanks for improving wikipedia, see you around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I am new to wiki and I am not sure which part you mentioned about my article is violating copyright. I'm the founder and executive director of the festival and everything mentioned in the article I submitted is owned by our organization. Please help to state clearly and we shall edit immediately for your approval to submit.--Stanley@Chen (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Stanley@Chen. All Wikipedia editors have to edit as individuals and not as representatives of any organization or company. Also, you may not have noticed the notice near the "save" button which states that any text added to a Wikipedia article becomes freely licensed for anyone to use, change or sell, so you would lose control of your perhaps carefully crafted text. There is a process for "donating" text, but it has to be done through a more formal process, since Wikipedia has no way of knowing for sure who is behind any particular username. Also, it's not usually worth it, because the text is often too promotional for a neutral encyclopedia article (e.g., "flagship", "top professionals"). It's usually quicker and more effective to rewrite the text in a neutral, factual way as though you were not connected with the organization. Some reading for you: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials
So, the answer to your question is that ALL text which is already published somewhere else, whether on a web site or in your organizations literature, should not be pasted into a Wikipedia article. I hope this clarifies the situation. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Anne. Thanks for your advice. I have further re-edited the article so could you please help to review and give further comments?--Stanley@Chen (talk) 05:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear Stanley@Chen: It looks like in the meantime Huon has deleted your article. He seems to have found more copyright problems and advertising. If you still want to write the article, you can do one of two things: (1) Write a new rather dry article about the founding and development of this group, with no embedded praise, no mention of upcoming events, just facts. or (2) ask Huon to restore your article and promise to change it right away. Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 04:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Could you have a look at the AfC Project talk page, the How to handle an IP attempt to create an article in Talk space thread? SPhilbrick and I have been making a query, and we feel that the answers we're getting are to different questions altogether. Could be we've not been clear... We usually aren't. Thanks if you can. Peridon (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Jpecore. The article is gone now, but as I recall the article was copied from MagicPedia (http://www.geniimagazine.com/magicpedia/Professor_Hoffmann). I read their copyright policy from the link at the bottom of the article. After I marked it for deletion, it was checked by one of Wikipedia's administrators, Alexf, who agreed and deleted it.
The easiest way to get that text back is probably to visit the MagicPedia site and copy it, but please don't put it into Wikipedia. We'd be happy to have a totally different article about Mr. Hoffmann, since he appears to have been a notable magic expert. If there were references that aren't in the MagicPedia article and you don't have a copy of them, or if for some reason you can't get the text from MagicPedia, you could contact Alexf on his talk page and ask to have it emailed to you.
Jpecore, We do have discussions about most types of problems, but copyright material has to be removed as soon as it is identified, or Wikipedia can be sued. We have an average of 900 or so new articles every day on Wikipedia, and the volunteer reviewers and other editors don't have time to go digging through policy pages of hundreds of web sites. (The wording on the main copyright page, http://geniimagazine.com/magicpedia/Copyright, makes it seem as though the exception is in the other direction, and that they can't copyright material from Wikipedia.) We have to assume that if material is already published, and no licensing information is submitted, it's not legal (which is actually the case here).
It's up to a person using copyright material to properly attribute it (as it says on the page you pointed out), to demonstrate to a publisher (in this case Wikipedia), that he or she has permission to use it. If you had followed MagicPedia's policy and included an attribution, your article wouldn't have been deleted.
Luckily, nothing on Wikipedia is ever really gone; it can all be fished out of the bin and restored. If you leave a message for Alexf, and explain that the text is licensed under Creative Commons, I'm sure that he will restore it. Ask him to add the following to the bottom of the article (copy the source so the links work), so that it won't be deleted again by the next editor to read it:
I hope that this doesn't sour you of creating Wikipedia articles. I'm sure that you won't run into this particular problem again, but I can't promise that there won't be other hitches - Wikipedia seems to be endlessly complex. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your offer to help with The Ghost of Otis. I travel all week and read e-mails on the weekend. I've been trying to follow Wiki "tips and Techniques' to no avail. Do I need to remove content?
Hello, Tdamico789. Well, not so much remove as rewrite. A lot of the article seems to be quotes. You should rewrite the content in your own words, being sure to add citations to specific magazine articles, news reports, reviews, etc. Here's an example of an article of about the same size: Dixie Flyers. See how the references are formatted. Notice how the article emphasizes the band's history, accomplishments and activities. In your article, it's a good to explain what's unique about the band (with a reference), but going on about it is considered promotional rather than encyclopedic. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear Reyno031: The thing to do next is to improve the article and submit it again by clicking on the "resubmit" button in the pink decline box. There was a fairly extensive note left at the top of the article by the reviewer, MatthewVanitas. He asks that you remove the lists of names (these are considered promotion of the people on the lists). He also asks that you add citations to sources completely separate from the University and from any other organizations involved in the magazine, to show that it is of general interest and should be in an encyclopedia. Articles about this publication written independently by journalists or other authors are what's needed. Matthew has even given you a couple of suggested links. While you are at it, how about changing the list of references at the bottom of the article into citations to particular facts in the article? I have done one for you as an example. This isn't required for passing the review, but it will need to be done eventually in a good article, and it gives the reviewers (and the readers) a better idea of which facts in the article are supported by which sources. Good luck, and I hope that you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Request for comment on La Luz del Mundo
Hi Anne Delong.
I have created a To-Do list to improve the article on La Luz del Mundo. I have included your concerns regarding the Discrimination section and would like to get your input if you ever have some free time in your hands. The list is found here: Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo#FAC_To-do_list. Thanks. Ajax F¡oretalk23:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
We do not delete articles just because something no longer exists - we have literally millions of articles about dead people, companies, products, countries, nations and empires that no longer exist. Please create a new completely separate article about the new product and do not destroy the article about the previous product. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear SamBardon: While it's true that QCReporting has no independent sources, that means that someone should add some, not that we should create more unsourced articles. If your new product hasn't been written about, it maybe too soon for an article. If it has, please add references to the written sources. The TestLink article is weak, too, but at least it has a reference to one review. You say that QCReporting no longer exists; I presume that you mean no one is selling it. If this was a well used piece of software, it would be difficult to eradicate every copy on the planet. No one is making Commodore Pet computers, either, but we aren't about to delete the article about it, because people are interested in it and it's part of the history of computing. This is the difference in perspective between a site designed to promote a product and an encyclopedia. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear Anne Delong: Thanks for the reply - but, no, I mean it does not exist (so no one can sell it), the link qcreporting.com is long time dead. We are the same company. We are now selling TestAuditor. Could I update what is there about QCReporting and set is as TestAuditor?
Like an update to existing information I need to let people now that QCReporting is now part of TestAuditor plus more. I admit the initial page was a bit salesy - a copy-paste off the testauditor.com/TellMeMore.php page, but only to get going. It's a huge advantage over existing products because they all use Java or .Net and therefore are slow and such a pin for most companies. TestAuditor is filling the gap for a need for something that works as fast as Facebook or Wikipedia - better technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamBardon (talk • contribs) 16:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello again Sam (don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildas (~). The signbot doesn't always work.). You should not change the QCReporting article to now be about TestAuditor. However, articles about software should have a section explaining when and by whom the software was developed, how it was marketed, and, as well, when it became obsolete. If TestAuditor was created by the same company, and is an official replacement product, that could be noted in the QC Reporting article as part of its history. (with a reference, please) Then, once TestAuditor has some reviews or other writeups and and article is created, you can add a link from one to the other. All this is moot, though, because unless some independent reviews, news reports, etc., are added, both articles will likely be deleted for lack of "notability" (which in Wikipedia terms means "Journalists and authors have written about this"). —Anne Delong (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
PS - If the QC Reporting article really was a copy-paste of existing text no longer on a company site, please edit it down to a shorter summary of what the product was and just remove any hype. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear Anne. Please could you approve the page. I'm inundated by emails, over 100 per day on people asking me for code samples and how to convert. I promise to put this all up on Wiki and grow the page with these common questions. SamBardon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear SamBardon: Even though I have written software in the past, a lot of this article is unintelligible to me, which is why I have left it in the review queue for someone else to read. Likely the reason it is taking a long time is that other reviewers are having the same problem. I have left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software to attract a knowledgeable reviewer; maybe that will speed things up. I think, though, that you are misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not a web host, or a place to promote your software; it just has general information about notable companies and their notable products. By notable, Wikipedia means that the product has been written about extensively by independent journalists or authors. In the case of software, this would be news articles or published software reviews by accepted experts (not in blogs or social media). Your article doesn't appear to have any references to these types of sources, so if reviewed today it would be declined. This was the reason given for the last decline as well. If you have customers waiting for specific information and examples, Wikipedia is not the place to refer them, because you will not have control over what is in the article. Your company must have its own web site for that sort of thing, or, if not, you can always make a blog or a social media site. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear Anne. I will have another read over to try fix the unintelligible parts of the article. So, the product does have a web site. It is www.testauditor.com. The product is the natural next release of the QCReporting product (which is on Wikipedia). The testauditor web site covers content on it's own product, as does HP. The missing part on both host sites is the part between HP Quality Center and TestAuditor. This is where Wiki is very usefull - as it explains the code conversion that is needed by so many users. So HP too don't have lots of code samples for users and the QCReporting site explained this part; which is what also prompted the Wiki-Editor to allow the page when it was submitted. Is it possible to allow the article and then check back in some time (like a month) and you'll see how useful it has become for users as there in-between questions come in.SamBardon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Please be more specific
Hi Anne,
Will you please be more specific as to what items caused you to reject the article?
Dear TheUmbrellaAgencyBP: Although you didn't say, I presume that you are talking about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jeremy Lowe. I'm not sure how much more specific I can be. Did you read the analysis that I wrote at the top of the article? If you tell me which part is not clear, I will try to expand on it. By the way, you may not realize that your username, which seems to be the name of a company, is against Wikipedia's username policy. Wikipedia editors are not supposed to be company representatives (this would indicate a conflict of interest), but individual volunteers writing from a neutral point of view. To change your username to something more personal see: Wikipedia:Changing username. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
DearAnne Delong: I'm still trying to figure out how to use Wikipedia. I'm very disoriented. Thank you for your patience. I changed my username. Thank you for pointing that out. Don't want a conflict of interest. I finally found the analysis you wrote. I will go through and try to strip out any promotional type of language to see if that does the trick. With that gone if the article still gets rejected then I will keep whittling things away. Thank you for the info and helping to keep this resource clean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheUmbrellaAgencyBP (talk • contribs) 11:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: The Stand at Apache River (2) (October 16)
Re
Hello, Prestonma! It seems that you have created two draft articles about "The Stand at Apache River". Do you mind if I delete the older one with no references? You won't need it because the newer one is better. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind consideration. I have emailed some of his associates and they will come with acceptable updates. Esmatly (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Wooden church of Ieud denied article
Good evening,
My name is Andrei Brebulet and I have written the article about the wooden church of Ieud. I would please ask for a reason for denying it, as it was written after the brochure given to me by the parish of the monastery. I am a tour guide in Romania and I visit this church about once a month. There is no other mentioning of this church, as far as I know, in Romania.
My email is andreibrebulet@yahoo.com. please contact me as i would be very happy to send you the picture of the description given to me by the parish and my tour guide permit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreibrebulet (talk • contribs) 16:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Andreibrebulet. We already have an article called Wooden Churches of Maramureș, which describes the church and has a photo of it. Ieud also discusses the church and has a photo. There is additional information on the UNESCO World Heritage website. We require significant coverage in reliable, independent sources for a Wikipedia article. Unfortunately, a brochure published by the church is not independent. Cullen328Let's discuss it17:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear Andrei: Sometimes when an article is declined, it just means that it's not ready yet. If you are a tour guide you probably spend time researching information about the places to which you guide people. Over time you will likely find several books, news reports, travel or religious magazine articles, etc., which have information about the church. If so, you can add references to these sources to the article and submit it again. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Filip Kovacevic (2)
I have asked that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Filip Kovacevic be WP:HISTMERGEd into Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Filip Kovacevic (2), which you currently have under review. If you are planning on accepting it, please hold off until the history merge is complete so the final article will have proper attribution (one IP editor made a contribution to the "older" article). If you are planning on declining it, please go back after the history merge and replace any declined AFC submissions and any AFC comments that may have been removed along the way. If you prefer to go on to the next review (something I highly recommend, you are a good reviewer) rather than do this clerical chore, I'll be happy to do it for you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
davidwr, I placed that submission under review to keep it from being reviewed because I already have asked Anthony Appleyard to do the history merge. I didn't just plop on the template because I wanted to make sure that your comment about the other person with the same name was preserved. What shall we do now? —Anne Delong (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Proceed as normal. A few minutes BEFORE I edited the older submission, I placed a nearly(?)-identical message on the newer page, so it's okay if the edit on the older page gets tossed. I said as much in my histmerge request. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Declined article: José Carlos Casado
Hi Anne,
I'm hoping you can help me. You recently declined an article I submitted on the artist José Carlos Casado, citing copyright infringement. I have used info from various sources, including the artist's website, press releases from galleries and various media articles. Often this info is exactly the same. The link you cite from New York Foundation for the Arts is the artist's statement, not copyrighted material from NYFA, as best as I understand. I am hoping you can educate me to the best way to meet Wikipedia's standards while acknowledging this artist's work. Thank you! Jeffmag (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear Jeffmag: Using information from published sources is fine, but copying and pasting whole sentences (or even sentences with one or two words slightly different) and pasting it into Wikipedia is not. If you want to become a Wikipedia editor (and I recommend it as a useful and enjoyable activity), you can't do it as a representative of any other person, organization or company. You have to write the text yourself in your own words; anything else is plagiarism. As soon as any person writes down some text, the copyright to that text belongs to that person, whether they write "copyright" on it or not, and for legal reasons Wikipedia can't use it. Now, there is a way that text can be donated to Wikipedia, not by you, but by the person or company that holds the copyright. Then Wikipedia owns the copyright, and its policy is to license it to anyone to use, change or even sell. However, in the case of artists, musicians, etc., it is usually a waste of time because that text is written to promote the person, and Wikipedia won't accept that anyway. Think of Wikipedia as a very large set of books in the process of being published, and you are an author wanting to include material in one of the books. You approach the editor of the publication, and you bring an article that is made up of bits and pieces of other people's work. What would the editor say? Okay, I am sorry to be so long winded; I hope you see what I mean, and will write an article about the artist in your own words, summarizing what independent journalists, art critics, etc., say about him rather than by reading text written for or by him. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
You recently asked for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Spelthorne Volleyball Club notability. The article is about a Premier Volleyball League in the UK. The Club is playing its first season, with very good performance in the country's highest volleyball league. Nonetheless, the UK Premier League is not a big deal. The league have not yet ranked high enough into the CEV for playing any of the Champions, Challenge or CEV Cup. Probably the league is not notable enough. Anything else, just let me know. Osplace03:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Osplace. Since you said that the league is not notable enough, I have declined the submission and asked for some news reports, sports magazine articles, etc. If they are close to being notable and then add some references I'll accept them. Okay? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Anne, Thanks very much for your feedback and correction to my submission. I haven't had alot of time to work on it lately, but it is on my agenda for when I have a moment. I appreciate your help; this is my first submission, and I believe that the public should be aware of this group of corporations. Thanks again, Daniellagreen (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Anne, I wanted to follow-up with you that I polished my article, and had some wonderful guidance and assistance from another editor, and my article has been published! I am so excited. Thanks for helping me take the first step with correctly arranging the references within the article! Daniellagreen (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Articles For Creation Declined
Hi Anne,
I am new to Wikipedia and I am trying to create this page for the Company I work for, all that was written is based on the company's history which is also on our website. Can you please tell me where I went wrong so I can make the necessary amends and get the page live?
My article was just rejected because it contains "copyrighted work." As I am the author of this information in the real world as well as the wikiworld, I would ask for clarification. Please be specific.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by PHWFFMedia (talk • contribs) 17:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear PHWFFMedia: Your username makes it appear that you are a media spokesperson for Project Healing Waters Fly Fishing, and have written the text for the organization. It has been published on their web site, so you will have to discuss with them who owns the copyright, but I'm sure that it isn't "PHWFFMedia", since that's not the name of a real person. If you, or whoever owns the copyright, want to donate the text to Wikipedia, there is a process for doing so (but not under an anonymous name); however, Wikipedia would then license the text to be used, changed or even sold by anyone, and a lot of people don't want that. Also, most of the time it's a waste of time, because text that makes a good story on a web site is not usually suitable for an encyclopedia article, which must be written in a formal, concise, neutral tone (nothing about "passions" being "rekindled" for example, or opinions) and contain only facts that can be verified from independent sources such as news reports, magazine articles, etc. In most cases it is simpler to just rewrite the text in the appropriate fashion. For example "It didn't take long for him to decide that life in the Navy was preferable to that of a high school band director and in short order he transitioned to the regular Navy" becomes "Nicholson transferred to the regular Navy in 1964 (or whatever the correct date was)."
You should also consider changing your username, because Wikipedia editors are supposed to be neutral individual people and not represent an organization or a position in an organization. Here's the policy: WP:ISU.
Hi Anne,
I've added citation for the Justice Safety Valve Act per your recommendation. Also it is before the United States Congress and Senators now. It's not been finalized as a law so I will have to update the date of that when, and if, it gets signed. Please let me know if it is ready to publish now. Thanks. yhtak2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yhtak2014 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Yhtak2014. I see that you have resubmitted the article. I don't know anything about American politics, so now that the referencing issue has been dealt with, I will leave this submission to a reviewer with more expertise in this area. That may take a little longer. Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi anne,
Thank you for reviewing. Fortunately, this is a bi-partisan issue and is gaining sponsors from both sides. I look forward to hearing from the additional reviewer Yhtak2014 (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/World Development Foundation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/World_Development_Foundation
Dear Anne,
I am grateful for your review and pointing the copyrighted sentences. I have removed them and rewritten the sentences. Further, I can't narrate my thanks for pointing to the three good references. I have used them in the article. I have resubmitted the article and I hope that it shall be accepted in the review.
I really appreciate the help provided by you. If possible kindly see the article now.
Regards,
Rupalisharma (talk) 09:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Anne
This article and writer looks like it will need quite a lot of hands-on assistance.
I have twice Speedied mainspace "copies" of the draft and left a note about the issue at the writer's talk page. Unfortunately I'm still extremely busy IRL and won't be able to do much wikiwork for at least the next week. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Adding a lead summary
Hi, I don't understand talk pages. I've asked via info twice but they just tell me to come to this page. So I hope this ends up with Anne Delong somehow... Thanks for your suggestion of adding a couple of sentences at the beginning of my article. I've done so. 37.72.112.108 (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Anne. I believe you're very good at this sort of thing, so don't hesitate to add yourself. I don't expect there to be a stampede for training, but it would be nice to have some available clued up instructors :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Just to say that this editor has been warned about writing promotional/advertising articles. He says on his userpage that he is a freelancer and I have no reason to doubt that he is a paid editor. Dougweller (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Regarding declined article 'Showslow' submitted on 24 Oct 2013, resubmission
Hi Anne,
I have recently written and submitted an article page for creation called 'Showslow', and that got declined I think for lesser number of references, as you suggested. There are two mostly used tools for webpage speed test, Page speed and Yslow by web giant companies Google and Yahoo, and they mentioned 'showslow' (but not made by them) as the tool to capture their results and show them as plot graph with recommendation. And those external links were mentioned in references in this article.
But as per your suggestion, I am adding more number of independent link references, by other authors and reviewers discussing about the importance of showslow for webpage speed test. The other content and information in the article I tried to be fully verifiable and true.
Hope now it can be considered for creation.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashank.Superone (talk • contribs) 19:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear Barnabyjunior: Wikipedia discourages people with a conflict of interst from writing articles, because they rarely come out in an unbiased form. However, submitting to Articles for creation is the right thing to do, because the editors here will help you to remove the promotional bits.
About copyright: All Wikipedia editors must write as individuals, not as agents for another person or company. Giving you permission to use material is not the same as giving Wikipedia permission. It's possible to formally donate text to Wikipedia, but it has to be done by the copyright owner, usually either the composer of the text or the person or organization for which the text was made. However, it's often a waste of time to do this, because the same carefully crafted sentences which are particularly wanted by the person with the conflict of interest are usually the ones that Wikipedia will not accept because they are promotional. Also, then Wikipedia will be the copyright holder, and they will immediately license the text for any use, including alteration or even selling it; many copyright holders don't want that. As well, as soon as the article is in the encyclopedia, any of the 120,000 or so active editors may decide to change it based on news reports, business reviews, magazine articles, etc., that they have read. It's easier just to rewrite the article in your own words. If you have written this article, you will know which parts to change because they are the parts that were taken substantially from a press release, personal profile, news report, etc. Just changing a few unimportant words (such as "drove" to "went") doesn't count - it should be the way that you personally would have phrased it. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Articles for creation: Baring Asset Management Limited
Hi Anne, I am reaching out to you as I need your assistance with this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Baring_Asset_Management_Limited. I've worked on the article for Baring Asset Management for some time and changed the history section a number of times. Following the initial feedback I even considered not including it at all. Is there any chance you could let me know which sections violated the copyright policy so I can work on them? Or if it works we could remove these sections? Please let me know Kt1502 (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear Kt1502: I can't see the article now, since it has been deleted, and I have worked on a number of articles since, so I don't remember exactly which parts were copyright. I presume that you have a copy of the text. If you click on the name of the page it will tell you which documents have text which is to similar. However, here is my general advice: A company's Wikipedia article should be about the founding and history of the company, any business events (buyouts, expansions, going public, financial reverses, controversies in the news, that sort of thing), plus a general description of what products or services it provides (not details intended to boost sales or profitability). This is usually the opposite of what companies want to put in, which are only the things that they are most proud of and whatever will promote their business. I wouldn't recommend leaving out the history section; just rewrite it in your own words, not using sentences anything like what is in the company press releases, web site, or in news reports. There is always more than one way to express an idea or tell a story. Be sure to add references to independent sources that back up the facts in the history. While you are at it, look over the rest of the article and make sure that it has just neutral facts. I hope this helps. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice Anne Delong - it's very helpful. Yes, I'll go back to the article and look for other ways to talk about the history of BAM. The other bits were all there, including controversy to remain neutral, etc. Is there any way I could see the article project page again? I can't see it either now that it's been deleted... Many thanks Kt1502 (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, if you click on the link in your first message above, you will see the name of the Adminstrator who deleted the page. If you explain that you are going to rewrite, he or she will likely agree to dig the text out of the archives and send you a copy. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Deletion of Mount Calvary (Anglican Use) Baltimore page
Dear Anne,
I am puzzled as to why this page has been deleted for alleged copyright violation. A URL was posted but, when I went there, the link was broken.
The basis for the article is freely available on the Mount Calvary web site, was written by the current pastor, was sent to me by him, and has been greatly expanded and footnoted by me. Permissions are in place for all the images used.
Please restore the page, as no copyright has been violated and no evidence has been provided yet (the URL being broken) to support the idea that it has.
Dear Trevor (Rygbi7777): Perhaps you are not aware that the copyright to text comes into existence as soon as it is written. It either belongs to the person who has written it, or, if they are employed to write it for another person or organization, then it belongs to that person or organization. Giving permission for you to use it is not the same as giving Wikipedia permission. I didn't delete the article myself, an experienced Wikipedia administrator agreed with my assessment and deleted it.
If Jason Catania is indeed your pastor, and if he can get the magazine and the church organization to agree that he and not they own the copyright, he could choose to donate the text to Wikipedia (who would make it available to anyone to use, change or sell). However, all of that would be a lot more work than if you just write the article in your own words. It also would probably prove fruitless, because the article is not written in the neutral, factual tone that Wikipedia articles should have - it's more like an essay, with stories, promotional language and opinions. Since the your article has been deleted, I can't see exactly which parts of the text you included in your article; I'm presuming that you picked out the more factual bits. I am also presuming, since I see that you have worked on some other articles, that you know that several independent news reports, magazine articles, books, etc., are required to verify the information in the article. A history written by the pastor would not be considered independent.
Don't worry - if the images were properly donated, they will still be there to be used if you submit a new page in your own words. If you didn't keep a copy of the text that you wrote, you can ask the deleting administrator. User:RHaworth, to find it in the archives and send you a copy. I know that this is not what you wanted to hear, but I hope you find it helpful. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Anne, thanks for the quick turnaround (re: Al Shirawi Group which I wanted to redirect to Oasis Investment Company LLC, currently under review). I'll wait and see what happens. Cheers.
Hi Anne, thanks so much for taking George Atallah's article live—I really appreciate it! I just took a look, and it looks like the signature from one of the people who commented on the article, werldwayd, is still at the top of the article, along with some spacing and a "--" that shouldn't be there. If you have a second, could you remove those from the top of the article? Thanks again! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 11:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks so much! As an editor with a financial COI, I follow Jimbo's "bright line" rule and never make edits to articles directly, so I really appreciate your help here! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Glad to oblige, although removing stray unrelated junk is pretty non-controversial. Since I do most of my editing in Articles for creation, I am constantly surrounded with COI, so it's refreshing to meet someone who accepts the spirit of Wikipedia. Have you been following the news reports and onWiki talk about paid advocacy? (Wikipedia:No paid advocacy) —Anne Delong (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I have been—Jimbo's Talk page has been especially interesting. Curious to see what comes of all the discussion! Thanks again, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 17:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Anne. I submitted the article for creation Abrantee Boateng on which you contributed a comment a few days ago. Do you have any advice on making the article suitable for creation ? I tried my best to create an article fit for submission and creation but it looks like there is some work to do. Aside from personal knowledge I did use the results of my online research to help with the article so that is where the paraphrasing comes into play I guess. But as you can see I made sure to write my submission in a neutral way and to leave out any information I could not verify with a reference. Any advice you have will be much appreciated. I will leave the same message to user davidwr as he also contributed a comment. Thank you.
K1a2k3 (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Teamwork Barnstar
Thanks for your information about inline citations, and for correcting my first one as an example of how to correctly cite in articles. I had placed the citations in the article, and was going to come back and correct them at a later date prior to the article being reviewed the first time, but I didn't get to it. Your expertise helped get me on the right track with citations. Thanks very much, and please check out the finished product, now a C-class article, Gernatt Family of Companies. Daniellagreen (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Crossbar - Article Submission
Hi Anne,
Thank you for the review of the Crossbar article. It's not great that the article was declined, but I'm hoping that you may help me fix the article for resubmission. I saw that there was a page to review the editors comments, but couldn't access it. I would really like to review your feedback and comments so that I may make the article better. When you have a moment, if you could let me know what changes need to be made, I'd really appreciate it.
Hello RWTanis. You ended up making two submissions about the same topic. This one is the original one: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Crossbarinc. If you click on it you will see my comments about what to fix; it just needs a few changes. The other one is not needed because it's the same. To save confusion, can I arrange for the extra copy to be deleted? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Recently submitted expansion of the page on Albert Bregman
Dear Ms. Delong,
I had submitted the article on Albert S. Bregman for review. Then I remembered that there was already a brief page on Bregman. So I submitted the article as a revision of that page. I should have only done the latter. You asked whether it was okay to delete one of these versions. Sure it is. You might want to keep the version that is a revision of the existing page.
CognitivePsychologist 22:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CognitivePsychologist (talk • contribs)
CognitivePsychologist, I am presuming that the one to deleted is the one that is still in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation, and the one that you want to keep is the one in the encyclopedia. I can't be sure from your explanation, so please confirm. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
AfC Review
Hi, Kudpung sent me to you. I was wondering if you might review some of my recent AfC actions. I've been out of the game for a little while and I want to get a second opinion with some feedback or tips for improvement. Thanks. Gigs (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
talkpage stalker swoops in... Anne, this is the manual mentoring process, which you were advocating at the RfC. My complex scheme over on the RfC page, was an attempt to automate this manual process. If Gigs had a wiki-tool that already *knew* which AfC submissions you had reviewed in the past, he could review the same ones (with the wiki-tool hiding your answers so Gigs would have to make their own decisions), and then see if his decisions matched yours or not. 100% hit-rate would prove he was a good AfC candidate, worthy of further (manual) mentoring.
The wiki-tool would dig up the diffs for us, too. And of course, if somebody *wanted* to review decisions that Gigs made, or that you made, they could easily do so. Anyways, in the meantime, we lack such a wiki-tool, so Gigs will have to manually find the diffs, which you can then manually review. p.s. Gigs seems quite savvy, so they'll prolly do well. HTH.
Please call me 74. Link is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/RfC_for_AfC_reviewer_permission_criteria#Suggestion_by_74-whatever. I know about the academy, and it is a manual training system, and I think your time is better spent *reviewing* actual AfC submissions, and letting students self-train by using a new wiki-tool to see how you do it, until they can mimic your actions. p.s. The same wiki-tool might play a prominent role in fun-pairing-wiki-adventures, but is not required for them, they can be implemented quite well manually via IM and regular wikipedia stuff. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I think much of what is going on at the RfC could be solved with better logging. Here's two corporate type articles, one I declined for being overly promotional and one I accepted. DeclinedAcceptedGigs (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
See my answer above. This is Yet Another Father-Figure Program, an AfC-specific fosterParent/childEditor , adultWizard/inexperiencedNoob , wiseMentor/foolishBeginner *manual* program, which should be run as a subgroup of WP:ADOPT if you really want my opinion. :-) That said, as harsh as it was, I still recommend that Gigs participate... but Gigs, make sure that Anne is your 'father-figure' ... otherwise, demand your money back! Hope this helps. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Gigs, agree about the logging... I think Kudpung is mainly just worried about getting some sort of barrier in place, a high enough obstacle so that there are fewer rank beginners using AfC duties as a way to 'approve' articles written by their friends. The insistent focus on secondary-criteria, rather than actual skill at AfC work on real-live-AfC-submissions, tends to reinforce that idea. Somebody with rollback and 10k edits is *not* going to be willing to let their buddy sneak an article through AfC which promotes the buddy's non-Notable band, right? They have too much at stake. But my goal is, to have a way for AfC reviewer-candidates to be trained... and then continuously monitored during their subsequent AfC efforts... so maybe you'll like my auto-parallel-reviewing-scheme, since it *does* provide better logging, among other things. I think Kudpung's scheme to put secondary-criteria into place, as a barrier to limit WP:SPIP, is orthogonal to my plan for auto-training and auto-logging. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, Gigs, I checked out those two. The Astral one was promotional, as you said, and I left an additional message reinforcing that. The Conviva one had a huge pile of press releases, and I was getting a little depressed about it, but wading through them I did find a number of what appear to be legitimate news reports, so I think your acceptance is okay. The NPP people can work on it now. Good job! —Anne Delong (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Minutes spent manually reviewing? Not that I'll use this real-world data concerning the opportunity cost of manual review-systems to push *my* pet project, oh no. Would not think of it. Gigs, how long did it take you to dig up the diff-links? ;-) Multiply that times the number of AfC reviewers that would be needed to cut the queue-wait-time in half... hmmm.... WP:TINC. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Anne, thanks for your review. I agree the Conviva one didn't look good on first impressions, but I found the same thing you found, that there is somewhat meaty coverage in some of the citations, enough to probably justify an article. I deliberately picked two cases closer to my threshold of acceptance so I could get more of a "fine tune" review. Getting you to review a couple obvious cases wouldn't help me much. "74", I think we need to take reviewing past just the idea of newbie mentorship. We could all use a reality check every now and then. That said, I'm on board with your development of technical tools to make it easier. I'm also in agreement with Kudpung that we do need to do something. AfC reviewing is something that needs to be taken seriously by the reviewer, and if it takes a whitelist to get people to realize that it's not just an easy way to "rack up a high score", then I guess I could go along with that. Gigs (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Anne, I left a correction over on the WP:RETENTION talkpage, but I wanted to say my sorry here as well.
"I wish to protest the role that 74 appears to be assigning to me here... Following another editor around and cleaning up his or her (deliberately left) messes would be boring"
I did not mean to speak of you now, I was specifically thinking of Anne Delong in December 2012. Although not yet replied on the talkpage, I'm currently reading through your first 500 edits, which make sense given your paragraphs in the Anne Phenomenon section.
I absolutely disagree when you say following editors around and fixing their messes is boring. You worked on your own Opera article... and while it was waiting in the queue... made 15 grammar-nazi sniper-fixes to other articles in the queue. This was 2012-12-26 that I'm thinking of. You came back to wikipedia, every hour, for hours and hours. *That* is where you got addicted to wikipedia. *That* is why you still help out at AfC. In my oh-so-not-humble opinion, that day is the keystone which explains the Anne Delong Phenomenon.
I want to re-create that day. Help me phrase my explanation on the WP:RETENTION talkpage, so that I capture what it is that brought you to love wikipedia. Hope this clarifies, and apologies for mischaracterizing your contributions now, when I should have been clear I was thinking of you back when you were just starting out. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear 74.192.84.101: While it's true that I do fix bad grammar and spelling, it has nothing to do with my enjoyment of Wikipedia. All my life I have worked at tasks in which accuracy was important (typesetting, teaching, library automation, computer programming, etc.), and I just do it automatically. I kept coming back to see where my article was in the queue, and I just looked at a few nearby articles whose titles caught my attention, and fixed obvious errors that I happened to see. I made only minor changes because I understood that major ones would be inappropriate in Afc. What instead has kept me interested in Wikipedia is interaction with people who are all trying to improve the world's access to information. The talk pages are the only social media that I have found with purposeful collaboration and interesting content instead of random trivia. Right from the beginning I saw each article in Afc as an individual reaching out to preserve information about topics important to him or her (even the spam...) I wanted to help, and I still do. HOWEVER, I want to say more about why I protested, and will continue to protest, being characterized as a proofreader (even last year). All my life I have worked in technical areas where my colleagues were mainly men, and I have had to develop elbows to overcome the frequent patronizing attitude that they know best, that I must be there to get coffee or take the minutes at meetings or tidy sloppy documentation rather than make any intellectual contribution. This, even though I have a Masters degree in computer applications and have written commercially successful software, provided computer training for hundreds of people, worked as a network administrator, chaired computer conference committees, etc. A Wikipedia editor says he wants a maid, the guys are all insulted, and then someone thinks of me. I wonder of my username had been SmellySweatSocks or ILoveMyChevy if we would be having this conversation. I hope that you are not one of these people who, once an idea is in your head, can't change it. I know that you mean well, but if you continue to point me out as a person who loves Wikipedia because of the exciting opportunities for fixing grammatical errors when I tell you that it's not so, no matter how you phrase it, I will continue to object, with increasing vigour. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Anne, appreciate your reply, apologies that my response is so long-winded. From my analysis of your early days, the reasons you were able to succeed as you have were all 100% from your undeniable competence: graduate-degree level of education, experience with CMS apps, capacity to grok raw HTML, understanding of the innards of computers, and capacity to manage things (not just be a cog or a maid). Believe me, I recognize your competence, that is why I want your case-study analyzed. I'm fully qualified to recognize your competence in all those areas, because I have the same types of competence, in the exact same areas. I don't like you because you are female, I like you because you are a great asset to wikipedia.
in which one may find, the long explanation of my wondrous intentions, my understanding of the core of the fabulous fun-pairing-scheme, and an offer to deal with my comment-text as you see fit
You are trying to protest, and thereby defend yourself -- and perhaps also other beginning editors that are probably 50% female statistically speaking -- against patronizing male-dominated gender roles. Okay. I get that. Certainly a valid worry. Not my intent of course. But that does not mean others, who run across the pairing-idea, will see it for what I'm trying to make it, which is pairs of ethical equals, going on a wiki-adventure together, with complementary strengths. Maybe the idea is fundamentally flawed; maybe it is impossible to phrase the idea in a non-offensive manner. Maybe the fact that both Phil's phrasing and my phrasing have generated immediate pushback, is indicative that this idea, that two people of unequal skill-levels could enjoy editing together, as equally, infeasible for political reasons. But you do not seem to have a problem with WP:ADOPT, of which Phil is an active member, and which is *explicitly* run on the metaphor of the experienced editor (usually male because most wikipedians are male) as an adult, who is giving *charity* to the poor helpless unable-to-take-care-of-themselves-child, a role played by the less-experienced editor (statistically 50% females). I have no problem with that program either, although really I wish they'd rename it to WP:MENTORSHIP, which is a better metaphor methinks. ((<bitter laugh> Upon previewing, I learn there is already a 'mentor' program... similar to the adoption-program on the surface... but which is really a euphemism for Parole Officer which is assigned to a Paroled Criminal, an editor that was given a wikiCop to monitor their future screw-ups and decide whether or not to ban them permanently aka capital punishment, or to perhaps instead someday release them from their personally-monitored parole status, and send them back to the mercies of the roving bands of wikiNinjas that will henceforth continue to impersonally-monitor them. Sigh.))
But I do not want yet another long-term mentoring scheme, I want a short-term happy-go-lucky insta-pairing FUN scheme. The idea of "articles needing help today" is close, but that is aimed at experts. I'm trying to come up with a scheme to attract *real* beginners. I have two example beginners for you, one male, one female. The male, despite getting upwards of 20 template-spams to STOP NOW on their talkpage, has ignored criticism, and is well on their way to being perma-banned (along with everybody else in their high school somewhere inside India). They should have been paired with an experienced expert, like yourself, and created their first article with uploaded images in a structured sandbox like AfC, not in mainspace. The female, from what I can tell, has left. I could not find enough low-hanging fruit, or enough interesting conversation, to keep her interest. She wanted to get an interesting fact about Jello-manufacturing ingredients into mainspace, but all the work formating and sourcing it was too much, so she lost interest. She too needed to be paired up, with someone besides me, someone who *she* found fun. With a wiki-hero-pairing-kiosk, or somesuch, both could have been saved. That is the whole point of WP:RETENTION, right? The beginners I am interested in retaining do not have any of the advantages you and I enjoy, which led to our productive wiki-careers: grad-school, programming, management skills. But both of them could easily perform copy-editing duties, if we can only make it fun.
Hope that this clarifies my actual position, rather than the position of chauvinist you seem to be worried I might be consciously-or-unconsciously taking. Furthermore, my actual capacity to change is *very* strong... as long as by change, you mean, improve how the idea is implemented/presented/etc, but still accomplish a pairing-wiki-adventure-kiosk-system. To that end, please, I trust you, do your worst, edit my comments on the WP:RETENTION talkpage, delete what you don't like, collapse what is irrelevant or offensive, fix up the idea of pairing-for-fun so that it becomes non-offensive, take your name out of my commentary and put something else in, do whatever it takes to make you satisfied. This is a standing offer, on all my comments on that talkpage, old or new, as a matter of fact. Please feel free. I don't care what needs changing, as long as the essential core of the idea, that a couple of people with unequal-skillsets can be matched up for an enjoyable fun wiki-adventure, is retained. On the other hand, if you want me to change my mind, as in, stop trying to figure out a good way to get pairing working... well, unfortunately I'm more determined that Pratham. :-) I hope what you mean is, stop trying to call you a proofreader ... although truth be told I'll still call you a grammar nazi, because I am just as much of a grammar nazi as yourself, where mainspace is concerned anyways ... unless you really object to that phrase as well in which case of course I'll stop calling you that (out loud?) out of respect for you opinions ... and of course, now that I understand your objection, I'll stop calling you a proofreader, whether I mean you-in-2012, or you-right-now, or you-in-some-future-role-that-may-or-may-not-involve-correcting-grammar-and-spelling-and-punctuation. No problemo, I can totally understand your resistance to that label. But I think many folks start out that way... I remember my first edit quite well... somebody had left an incorrect space before a comma in their sentence , which drove me nuts of course, so I fixed it.
If you really insist, I will even stop trying to say that some of the beginning editors might like to be proofreaders, suitable fauna that will join the guild of COPYEDITORS, that you were invited to join by David-somebody, on your fifth active day (January 2nd if memory serves). But to be frank, that's going to hurt our chances of making a successful pairing-scheme. There are a ton of copy-edit-errors in the AfC queue, and they don't take much skill or training to spot and fix, so they are a nearly-perfect example of the sort of valuable -- yet easy -- work that beginning editors can do. And the chance to do valuable work, and be appreciated, is what wikipedia is all about. To me at least. Best regards, please tell me what I ought to do, thanks for your time as always, — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
p.s. Actually, reading your comment one last time, you say that interacting with folks who are all trying to improve the world's access to information, is what *really* motivates you to stay. Myself, though I might phrase it a bit differently, as well. But there are few people like us. Very few,[citation needed] in fact. Maybe your position is, that wikipedia is no place for the folks of the world that do *not* have graduate-level-education, strong computer skills, and team-management expertise, in addition to a desire to improve wikipedia. If so, I will be greatly saddened, but I have met people with exactly that opinion, more or less -- Mark Miller seems to hold something like that view, and User:slakr explicitly holds something very much along those lines. I disagree, wikipedia is the encyclopedia anybody can edit, nothing more and nothing less. But I'll go ahead and collapse my longer explanation above... because if this is you position, then no matter how I rearrange the fun-pairing idea, you'll never agree with me it is a good scheme, because I'm particularly and explicitly trying to attract no-college-education-needed weak-computer-skills-only never-managed-anybody folks, who right now have the hardest time becoming editors. Because wikipedia tools are difficult to use, and wikiCulture is so harshly unforgiving, we drive away many productive editors... but we drive away nearly all *potentially* productive editors. I want us to have millions of active editors, who even if they only make one edit a week, think of themselves as wikipedians, and will fight to protect her, against spam, PR firms, data spies, and her other deadly enemies. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear 74.192.84.101: Whew! Have you thought of going into politics? For the record, I didn't say that some beginning Wikipedians wouldn't like fixing grammar and spelling - obviously some do, and I agree that it's a good task for beginners. I just asked you not to use me as an example, since I am not one of them. And of course one doesn't have to have a degree to edit Wikipedia - and even if you do it doesn't mean you aren't ignorant in some areas - for example, I think the guys at Wikiproject Football must think I'm a dunce, since I have trouble keeping the different types of balls straight, let alone which teams are professional. Also, one thing to take into account when pairing people up is that beginners don't stay beginners, so the pairs might not last long unless the pair find some mutual interest besides one making spelling errors and the other fixing them. Okay, I am going back to Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions, since every hour I spend away from it another 50 or so old submissions go down the rabbit hole without being checked... —Anne Delong (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I would be awful in politics. Didn't you see how well my super-duper-political-skills helped me force the majority to do my bidding over on the WP:RETENTION talkpage? Anyhoo, I will post-haste remove you as my example-person, and apologies for having rubbed you the wrong way; definitely not my plan, nor my intention. Sorry about that, sincerely. p.s. You mean soccer, or you mean football? If you really want to be confused, try and handle the dispute-resolution of anime versus manga... which I vaguely understand are live-animated teevee shows about a character, versus still-animated comic-books about the same character... but are incredibly VASTLY more complex than that, and have caused an edit-warzone-battleground with entrenched embittered factions. :-) Ah, wikipedia.... p.p.s. Yes, the goal of the fun-pairing-system is *only* to facilitate short-term pairs. Fifteen minutes, *maybe* thirty minutes... then back to the kiosk, to pick a new adventure with the same person, or more typically, a new person and a new adventure. Sometimes, of course, paired-wiki-hero buddies will develop into friends, or into the more traditional wikiGuru and wikiGrasshopper relationships. But the goal is for wiki-pairing to be fun, and to draw in a *very* large number of beginners, most of whom have never edited before. Thanks for improving wikipedia, good luck with G13. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Deletion of Kauai Invasive Species Committee article
Anne,
Recently, you deleted my submission for a Kauai Invasive Species Committee article because of a perceived copyright violation. You did not attempt to discuss this before you deleted it. I did not violate copyright for the following reasons:
I wrote the pdf and posted it to the KISC web page
We are a project of the University of Hawaii and all of our documents are for public dissemination and cannot be copyrighted.
I would like to discuss this further or would like to know what further recourse I have with this article. I cannot seem to access even past editions.
Dear Kmgundersen: Wikipedia has a policy that each of its editors must edit as a neutral individual, and not as an agent or representative of an organization. Because of this, any text that was written for an organization can't be used unless the organization formally donates it to Wikipedia. Just because they disseminate it doesn't mean that there is no copyright. Most organizations don't want that, though, because then Wikipedia owns the text, and it will immediately license it to anyone who wants to use, change or even sell it. Also, it's usually pointless, because Wikipedia articles are usually quite different from the text on an organization's web site, which is written to promote the organization. If you went to the trouble of getting the text donated, other Wikipedia editors would immediately start altering it to be more like other Wikipedia articles. Your organization does have the option of donating the text, (seeWP:Donating copyrighted materials) or, you can just rewrite the article in your own words to tell about the founding, purpose and development of the organization. I'm sorry that I deleted the material right away, but for legal reasons that has to be done with any text that is a duplicate of a web site, book, etc., unless there is a specific public domain or free licensing statement on the page. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
G13
I just learned of G13, so if these ideas have already been discussed please disregard. WP:G13 does not say anything about a bot deleting the page, so it seems reasonable to have a tag created that gives editors a right to decide to not let a bot deleted the page. The page still would be subject to G13 speedy deletion by a human, but just not by a bot. Another idea - Wikipedia:Userfication. Post an edited to the page each six months. If these violate a process, please disregard. -- Jreferee (talk) 06:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Jreferee. The Wikiproject:Articles for creation area is supposed to be a holding pen for articles that are under development. Over the years, though, a lot of drafts that are not under development were left (at one time nearly 80,000!). These are being picked up by mirror sites and posted to be indexed by search engines, and many of them have serious flaws. The G13 process is as follows: (1) A draft has not been edited for six months (2) a bot notices this, adds a G13 eligibility tag and leaves a "use it or lose it" reminder on the the submitter's talk page. (3) other editors who don't like to see content wasted look through the tagged submissions, making an edit on ones that were abandoned for some reason even though they had good potential, and adding a template to help other editors find them. (4) after 30 days, if the submission still hasn't been edited, a bot comes along and adds a db-g13 tag, (5) an admin sees the tag and deletes the page.
There really isn't any point in having pages kept indefinitely in Afc if they are not progressing toward being articles. I misspoke on the help page; it's not really a bot that deletes them; it just adds the tags - I have changed that. Userfication would prevent deletion by this process, but maybe the user him/herself would decide to delete the page. It looks like a good solution that preserves the page but keeps it with the parent article has been suggested on the help desk page. Thanks for your interest! Maybe you'd like to rescue some potential articles here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/G13 rescue —Anne Delong (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
newspaper article to update Tom Adams bluegrass musician page
Anne, there is a newspaper article published by the Winchester Star, Winchester VA that would bring the Tom Adams (bluegrass musician) page up to date. He has returned to playing banjo and is performing with Springfield Exit, based in Winchester VA. Info is: http://www.winchesterstar.com/article/springfield_exit_will_open_merle_haggard_concert posted online on October 25, 2013 by Laura McFarland. The article and photo also appeared in the print edition of that newspaper.E19S24cr (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
That's great, E19S24cr. However, because that paper needs a subscription, I can't see the article. Perhaps you could add a sentence or two and a reference to the article yourself, since you have access to it. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
A Barnstar for You!
The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar
Congratulations, Anne Delong! You're receiving the AfC Barnstar because you reviewed 459 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down.You are also receiving the Teamwork barnstar for re-reviewing over 25 reviews! We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! --Mdann52talk to me!18:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Eddie Lopez article
I got the message from you on my talk page. Just to let you know, I did not write that article, in fact, it's not even on my watchlist. I may have nominated it for CSD one time, or something like that, but that was all. Just FYI. Regards, --Manway17:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Manway. I have been nominating old drafts for deletion using a script, which is supposed to find and notify the original editor. I guess it messed up this time. The article is gone now. Thanks for letting me know. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany. Message added 00:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Advice requested
Greetings, Anne Delong. I don't think we've met, but I was hoping I could trouble you for some assistance. I've been active on Wikipedia for over a decade, but I've never gotten involved with AfC. I do plenty of GA and FA reviews, though, so it seems like something I might be good at. Eventually I heard enough people telling me about how much help was needed with the backlog, that I decided to give it a try. But even for a rather experienced Wikipedian like me, the process can be quite confusing. Here's how it went.
I installed the script and read through all the directions, and I pushed the big green button and found Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ian Angus. It had been declined once before, and that reviewer had stated that more independent references were needed to establish notability. He also specifically asked if there was a reference for the bibliography. Since then, the nominator had added a number of RSs, and had fixed everything the previous reviewer had requested.
Now I could see that there were still a lot of things about the article that could be improved. For one, he'd attempted to source the bibliography, per the reviewer's request, by sourcing each book with itself. That was rather pointless. (Since most FAs don't source the bibliography, considering it "self-referencing", I just removed these.) There were plenty of formatting errors and MOS issues, and I fixed some of them, but the sources seemed solid this time. (Well, mostly; I left a {{fact}} tag in one section.) I decided to accept the nomination, clean it up a little bit, and leave a to-do list on the talk page.
So how would you have handled it? Would you have accepted it? How many format fixes do you feel obligated to make in a new article? And how "ready" does it have to be before it's accepted? Also, how much do you communicate with the nominator? I'm used to the WP:GAN and WP:FAC processes, which involve lots of back-and-forth conversations in figuring out how to get the article into the best possible shape, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of room for that at AfC. Any guidance you could give would be appreciated. All the best, – Quadell(talk)17:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Quadell. It will be great to have another reviewer helping out, especially one with experience at article improvement. It sounds as though you are on the right track. You will find that our goals in AfC are a lot more modest than FA work. We don't insist that the articles be excellent, only that they are good enough that the next group, the New Page Patrol, won't nominate them for deletion. It's fine to leave formatting problems, as long as the article makes sense and follows basic policies. It's a good idea to leave a comment explaining any changes you make to the article, because a lot of the new users have no clue about the policies and may not realize what you are up to. Don't forget to check for copyvios - we get a lot of those. I agree with you about the bibliography sources; usually it's independent reviews that we are looking for, because for an author book reviews are a good way to show notability. The AfC submissions don't have talk pages, but you can always leave a message on the user's talk page. Leaving a Teahouse invitation is a good idea, too. The article looks pretty good; it probably has too much of the subject's opinions, but I guess that's hard to get away from with a philosopher. If you look at a submission and aren't sure what to do, you can (1) just leave it for someone else (2) ask for a second opinion from another reviewer or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help (3) ask for advice at a Wikiproject (I do this with sports articles - they make no sense to me). So go to it, and good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your feedback; it was very helpful. Can I trouble you for help with a specific example? (Once I'm confident I've done a couple correctly, I won't need to bother you... but a "walk-through" of sorts would be helpful.) I'm looking at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Tallerman, and here's my thought-process. There are all kinds of problems with the article, but none of the quickfail criteria seem to apply. The author is probably notable, but there could be problems with the verifiability. The "inline" refs (though not formatted like standard inline refs) include only: a podcast which published his work and is probably not a RS (1), the author's own agency (2 and 22), and various groups that have published or republished his work (3-19 and 21). There is one non-inline ref that is at least an independent review, though I don't know if it's reliable (20). So I could decline it right away with a note about there needing to be independent RSes. Is that what you would do? Would you also try to give the nominator information about using <ref>s and {{Reflist}}, about the various MoS-issues, or about how the article contains very little biographical information outside of his publication history? Thanks in advance, – Quadell(talk)17:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes,Quadell, I would decline it as lacking reliable, independent sources, but I would leave a message explaining that the references need to be independent of both the author and his publishers - reviews or news articles by journalists, writeups about him or his work in literary magazines, etc. I would also tell him that the external links to his stories in the article are considered promotional and will have to be removed, (although a few examples could be moved to the "External links" section), or if the links are to reviews, etc., they should be turned into citations. A link to WP:Referencing for beginners shows how to do that. If I think that the subject is notable, even though I am declining it I often leave an encouraging sentence such as "When this has been done please submit the article again.".
Thanks to your clear explanations and examples, I can now more effectively help out at AfC. You're a great asset to Wikipedia. All the best, – Quadell(talk)21:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Respected Anne,
My article is declined for a second time. First time I recieved the list of reasons. I followed them and made changes. However my article was declined again, this time with no explanation. i would like to improve my Article, but don't know in which direction to go... Can you give some advice?
Energoprojektmarcom (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear Energoprojektmarcom: I presume that you mean the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Energoprojekt. Let me explain a little about Wikipedia. An encyclopedia article is different from a company web page. For one thing, information needs to be verified by sources independent of the company. For example, if the company has been involved in many important projects, these will have been reported in newspapers, magazines, in books, etc. References to these reports need to be added to the article (see WP:Referencing for beginners). Secondly, the articles are supposed to be written by a neutral person, not by a representative of the company, because it's hard to see your own company from the view of an outsider. Articles shouldn't just be a list of accomplishments and praise, but include setbacks, controversy, etc. if it exists. Since you are obviously connected to the company, you will have to work hard to remove the language in the article which is put there to make the company seem important. Here's and example; You wrote:
Through its many years of business operations, Energoprojekt has evolved into a complex business entity, integrating today 10 internationally active and sophisticated companies in Serbia and over 20 subsidiaries and joint venture companies worldwide, offering a wide range of consulting, engineering and contracting services. It's structured expansion has resulted in the formation, under Energoprojekt group, of 10 diversified, internationally active and sophisticated companies covering the full range of contracting and consulting engineering activities.
Instead:
In 2013 Energoprojekt is a group of ten companies which provide international contracting and consulting engineering services, and over 20 subsidiaries and joint venture companies.
Words such as "sophisticated" and "successful" are opinions, and should not be in the article. How many is "over twenty"?
So, here are four specific things you can do to improve the article:
The article is long because you are saying the same things over and over. Try to be concise. A short, informative article is more likely to be read than a long essay-like article.
Add some references to independent sources such as news reports, magazine articles, etc. They don't have to be in English, just in reliable publications.
Take out all language that is there to emphasize the importance of the company. That's "promotion" and Wikipedia won't accept it. Wikipedia judges importance by what the independent sources say, not by what the company's staff says about it.
Include specific information about company history instead of emphasizing in general how big it is. For example, you say that it started as a state owned business; how and when did that change? Or is it still state owned?
I hope this is helpful. A large multinational company should definitely have a Wikipedia article, so if you follow the above advice the article should be accepted. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Editing Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ IBM SmartCloud Virtual Storage Center
Hi Anne,
Thanks for reviewing my article "IBM SmartCloud Virtual Storage Center". I have made changes based on your comments. You mentioned "Emotionally loaded words such as "painful" should be replaced by specific information" but the line with the word painful was cited from an external report. I have removed the word but do I need to?
Dear Meg Chatterjee: I see that originally you had copied the entire sentence verbatim from the source. That's plagerism, and would be against copyright laws in any case. More than just changing a word, the whole sentence needs to be rewritten in your own words. Also, what this sentence does is add someone else's opinion to the article. Opinions are not allowed except in the case where the person giving the opinion is a recognized independent expert (for example, a professional software reviewer from a computer magazine). The source that you have given for the sentence, which you have titled "Enterprise Management Association Research" appears to be hosted on the IBM web site. Is EMA part of IBM, or is the imformation about EMA written by IBM staff? In either case that would make it a primary source, hardly written from a neutral point of view. If EMA is an independent research company, you should reference the EMA report itself. Also, although I know more than the average reader about computer software, I haven't heard of it, so this is an example of "no context". Instead of "EMA", You should write out the full name and add a short description, "independent marketing research company", or "IBM's marketing subsidiary", or whatever is accurate. You will know better than I.
About the rest of the article: You have definitely made it more readable. Now I have an idea what this product is for. There are still a few issues. The word "agile" usually describes a characteristic of an animal, and leaves one guessing what it means when discussing a batch of files in storage. Maybe "flexible" would be better, since it has often been used to describe filing systems. Also "transition existing traditional storage" is a bit vague. By traditional storage do you mean a company's own servers and hard drives? Does the software move the files somewhere else? "Transition" is a noun, so maybe that's the problem - move? reorganize? relocate?
My suggestions in the previous paragraph, while I believe would make the article better, are not required for the article to be accepted. However, there appears to be another weakness that must be addressed, and that is the sources. For a piece of software to have a Wikipedia article, it must have been written about extensively in several independent, reliable published sources. It's okay to have other sources too, but these won't help the article be accepted. For example, your "Tech-Beat" source says "in association with IBM". Two of the others are press releases, meaning they were written by IBM staff. The EMA source is on the IBM web domain. Please check around for some independent reviews in computer or business magazines, news reports, etc.
It's not likely that it will be me doing the next review, since after today I will be in an internet-free zone (bluegrass festival) for the next few days. However, if you make the suggested changes and it hasn't been reviewed by Monday, leave me another message and I will look at it. You have made it so much better after my first review that I am confident that with a little more independent sourcing it will be accepted. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, but no thanks!
I recently used the "thank" feature to thank you for something or other but I've just seen you don't like this feature[1] and don't use it yourself. So, sorry about that and here is a proper "thank you" message. Well it would be except I can't remember what I was thanking you for! I think you were being nice to someone who had just received a rather brusque response and you managed to do this without being unpleasant to the other person involved. Thank you. Thincat (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear Thincat: I appreciate that you take others' feelings into consideration. Don't worry, I am not offended by the "thank" feature; I was just protesting the social-media-izing of Wikipedia. Also, in discussions I think it is important to support (or otherwise) others' views openly rather than in a hidden way. If the "thanker" gadget left the little message on the person's talk page where everyone could see it, I'd be willing to use it, occasionally. Anyway, thanks for your support. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I do have the power to stop the bot myself-any admin can stop any bot by blocking it--but I think I will prefer to ask another admin. DGG ( talk ) 08:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
In connection with this edit, if you look at the page you linked to, just above the heading "Artist/Band Information", you will see that it says "This text has been derived from Initiation (TheStart album) on Wikipedia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0". JamesBWatson (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, JamesBWatson, I realized that when the nomination was reverted and I apologized on the talk page of the article. I am not sure how I missed seeing the notice - perhaps because the text was small. I was fooled because the other article was created first. I presume that someone has been updating the Wikipedia article and then copying the result to the other site. The result is that the Wikipedia article is more like a fan page, with opinions and first hand information that's not encyclopedic. If this is someone connected to the band that's doing this, they really should keep two versions, a neutral, factual one for Wikipedia and a more insightful one for their promotions. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, please could you explain this to me? Zenon is not untrusted. You get here all the important things out of the first hand. Do you know about science? About Archaeology? It seems to me, that not. Your action is highly not to understand. Marcus Cyron (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Marcus Cyron. I think that you are misunderstanding what Wikipedia is. It is not a place for an organization to make a web page about itself. Wikipedia only has articles about subjects that have been written about in published sources that are independent of the the organization. It has nothing to do with being trustworthy. To have the article accepted, you have to show that others not in your organization agree with the information and have found it interesting enough to write about. I have studied both science and archaeology, but not at an expert level. If your article had references to reliable sources, such as news reports, archaeological magazine or journal articles, published books, etc., which contained information about ZENON, then I would have referred it to Wikipedia:Wikiproject Archaeology for checking. Since it had none of these, I asked you to add some. These are needed before the article can be accepted.
Please realize that this is not because of any opinion about your organization. When I joined Wikipedia, I wrote an article about an organization to which I belonged (Mandolin Society of Peterborough) and it was declined too. I too had to add independent sources, and you can see that now the information is well verified.
I presume that you are a scientist, and so have written and submitted many papers for publication. You must be accustomed to including references to published sources. No journal would accept a paper without references. Wikipedia publishes not what an organization says about itself, but what other authors and experts say about it.
I hope that you will add the requested references and submit the article again. I also hope that this explanation is clear; if not please ask for more information. You can also ask for help at the Teahouse (for new users) or at the Afc Help Desk (for advice about improving articles). —Anne Delong (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello! I'm sorry that I did not notice the template reflist at the article, and thank you for reminding some additional info about reviewing at WP:AFC. Good luck reviewing too! FairyTailRocks (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that you have signed up for the drive. Please note that the AFCBuddy script does not appear to be functioning at this time. Therefore, user Backlog Elimination Drive log pages will need to be manually updated. Northamerica1000(talk)04:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification. I likely won't have too much time to help out with the drive. 32,000 old submissions about to be deleted still need checking over. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Vodka
There already is an article at Monte Carlo (vodka) which contains similar material. I've declined to restore the AfC one, but the main space article needs looking at too. I'm trying to decide what to do with it. Peridon (talk) 11:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Ms. Delong - Thank you very much for moving this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RayPellecchia/sandbox to the appropriate section for review. I'm a first-time contributor and sincerely appreciate your help. Is there anything I need to do at this time other than await further review/comments? Any insights or suggestions, or any thoughts you have about the article itself, would be welcome. Thanks again. RayPellecchia (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear RayPellecchia: Since you ask, I notice that you have a lot of inline citations, but many of them are to the organization's own literature and web site. These types of citations are not suitable to show the "notability" of the organization; it's like writing yourself a reference at a job interview. Try to replace as many as possible of these with citations to outside neutral sources such as news reports, magazine articles, books, etc. (not social media sites or blogs, because these cam be edited by anyone, and aren't considered reliable). If you do this, it will make the article appear more reliable to the reviewer. Sorry, I'm in the middle of a big project right now and don't have much time for reviewing. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear Anne Delong: Thanks for the fast response and guidance. The article was already rejected for lack of notability and I added nine independent sources along the lines of what you described, and made them primary in my citations about TINA's work. I'm hoping that those will establish notability consistent with the notability guidelines I've read, and that the citations from TINA itself will serve to just add depth. Again, I appreciate your time and effort. RayPellecchia (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, RayPellecchia, we'll see what happens. Just remember that Wikipedia won't pass articles that don't appear to be written from a neutral point of view, or contain promotional adjectives or opinion. A long list of citations to organization-produced material may be considered promotional, especially if they support contentious statements. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Rancho Leonero, 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.
Indeed, we're so glad you've been here on Wikipedia throughout the last year, welcoming newbies, working on backlogs, and just making Wikipedia a better place. Thanks for all you do! – Quadell(talk)17:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I tried to move the Crossover article to mainspace but obviously screwed this up. Can you please move it for me. Sorry for such an awful mess. The article is fine and should just get accepted. Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear Smokefoot: It's going to take a little time to fix this up. I started to work on it, but then had a medical emergency in the family and had to go out. I will see that the article is accepted and moved to the right title. Thanks for your help in reviewing it, since its not a subject with which I am familiar. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you!!
Thank you so much for looking into the situation with the various Crossover experiment(chemistry) pages! This is my first time creating an article and your help is much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akbartholomew (talk • contribs) 07:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Update regarding AfC backlog drive auto-updating with AFCBuddy
Manual updating of your Backlog Elimination Drive page is no longer necessary. The AFCBuddy bot is now automatically updating AfC reviews that are performed when using the Helper script. The bot-generated pages are located at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/December 2013 - January 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive/[Your user name].
Importantly, please note that any re-reviews you may have performed will need to be manually copied and pasted to the bot-generated pages. Thank you for participating in the drive. Northamerica1000(talk)19:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Hope you and yours are well
I'm sorry to obliquely hear about "a medical emergency in the family"—I sincerely hope you and your family are doing okay. If you find yourself in the middle of some wiki-activities and need to step away for days or weeks for more important real-life events, let me know and I'll try to step in and take care of things. All the best to you and yours, – Quadell(talk)14:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Quadell, as it turned out, it was only a one-day problem, but I realized the next morning that I had forgotten to press "Save" in my rush to the hospital, leaving a request for help unanswered. Luckily, others stepped in to fix the problem. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I am new to wikipedia so all of your comments are helpful. I removed the companies website from references and found a better article to show relevance to my subject.
How does a user reference an article more than once as in a wiki page? I found more than one thing I could use in the current article, but do not want to reference the same article twice in to places? Hopefully this makes sense. I would appreciate you taking a look at my page to see if it is in proper form and relevant to be published.
Dear SEAoutdoors: You can use the same reference in more than one place if you give it a name, like this: <ref name=mywebsite>put the reference stuff here</ref> Then the next time you want to use the same one, just put <ref name=mywebsite /> .
I hope that you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Articles about companies are often tricky, because it's difficult to find information that isn't promotional. I guess for a clothing line fashion magazines might me a place to find reviews. The references don't have to be on line; print publications are fine as long as the citations have the full information so that an interested reader could find the information, for example in a library. Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
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.
Dear Jreferee: I am afraid that I am stymied. The text in the article was not written by me; I can't just copy-paste it somewhere else without losing the copyright attribution. I had expected that the page itself would be edited and moved to mainspace, and I was prepared to do that, but now that you have created an article at that title I can't. I am not an admin and I can't move diffs around. The original editor hasn't edited for several years. Maybe we need to ask an admin what to do. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Anne. I thought the MfD close was reasonable. The MfDed information is preserved on the article talk page and can be used as a guideline on searching for independent source information for the article. Your list of source information is preserved on the article talk page for someone to come along and summarize it into the article content. The stale draft user page is deleted, the information is preserved, and Herman Born & Sons now has what it did not previously have - a Wikipedia article from which other can locate and improve. I don't think the attribution is needed for the article, but it is preserved in the article talk page if you think you have need for it. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Jreferee, since you feel that this is appropriate and I don't, I suggest that you improve the article that you have written yourself. I don't have any specific interest in this article; I just found the sources to show that it was a notable topic. I was willing to change them into citations in the original article, but if a new article is to be created instead, I am unwilling to move the text as is and don't have enough interest to research and rewrite in my own words. I am busily involved instead in checking and postponing G13 eligible Afc submissions. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Palanca Awards 2011, 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.
Hello, Nynameis: Yes, Wikipedia has many articles that are not up to standards. Because there are over four million articles, sometimes there are some that haven't yet been closely examined. This isn't a good reason to add more, but a reason to improve or delete the existing ones. Also, if the experienced editors believe that references are out there, but just haven't been added yet, the article is kept until someone has the time or energy to do the work. For example, I have just added some URLs for references to the Noah Marullo article, which will now need to be formatted and made into citations. (I notice that his article had been deleted at one time.) If you believe that Mia is as notable, then you should be able to find some news reports or independent reviews that discuss her. If not, the article can remain in the Articles for Creation section until you find something to add and are ready to submit again. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Barbara Gordon (filmmaker), 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.
article on Institute for World Evangelisation ICPE Mission
article on Institute for World Evangelisation - ICPE Mission was rejected due to copyright issues. What copyright issues? This is the Institute for World Evangelisation - ICPE Mission wanting to create a wikipedia page about itself! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICPE Mission (talk • contribs) 15:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear ICPE Mission: Wikipedia editors are all individuals, and mustn't edit as representatives of an organization. In fact, your username, as the name of an organization, will likely be blocked, so you should probably consider making a new account. Wikipedia is not a web host; it's a publication (imagine a really large set of encyclopedia books). The text in the article that you submitted has been written for World Evangelisation, for their use. Any text added to Wikipedia is actually donated to Wikipedia, which immediately licenses it freely for use, change or even sale by anyone. Most organizations don't want that. However, if World Evangelisation does want to, there is a process to officially donate the text. The process is explained HERE. It's usually not worth the trouble, because usually the text an organization writes about itself is not written from a neutral point of view, but is intended to promote the organization. That's another one of Wikipedia's no-nos, so sections of the text would likely be deleted or changed considerably by other editors in any case. The most efficient thing to do is to write a short, factual article about the founding, development and general activities of World Evangelisation, add references to sources not connected to the group, such as news reports, magazine articles, books, etc., to demonstrate that it has been written about extensively by journalists and other published authors. I hope this helps. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Two unrelated things
1. Great minds thinking alike: working my way up from the bottom of WP:MFD, at this point I had the same idea about restoring MfD notices to deleted talk pages as, a few items further up, I saw you had already suggested. For that and the ten similar items above, I did restore them. What a pain these fantasy-gamers are: perhaps we should set up special Wiki for them on Wikia.
I hope you are right, JohnCD, because over the last many months I have moved hundreds of sandboxes, both before and after decline, and this issue hasn't come up before. I haven't had time to do much work at Mfd, but I hope to later once the G13 backlog is gone. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I may be being silly here, but my Sandbox now redirects to WikiTalk after what appears to be an edit you made. If I am wrong about that, sorry in advance. HullIntegrity (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello HullIntegrity! Your sandbox had an Articles for creation submission template on the article there. That indicates that you want the article reviewed and then moved into the main encyclopedia. Moving it into the review area (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation) is the first step. Then the reviewers will either pass it or give some advice on what needs fixing. It looks, though, as though you have removed the review template (big yellow box). Did you want to continue working on the article by yourself in your sandbox? If so, I can move it back. If you think it's ready to go forward, you should put back the review request by adding {{subst:submit}} at the top of the article. Sorry to have confused you. The review may take a while, but in the meantime you can use the sandbox to start another article if you want, by removing the redirect text. Good luck, and I hope that you are enjoying being a Wikipedia editor. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
December 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Barbara Gordon (filmmaker) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"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.
Are these articles independent of the company? If so, can you work them in as citations? The article seems to have things cited backwards to what it should be. Reports written by independent sources should be cited as references, backing up the facts in the article, and material written by or for the company should be in the external links. If you add the above, and change any items in the "External links" list that are not written by Rowebots into citations, leave me another message and I will pass the article. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Question
Hi Anne Delong, I've seen your name around several times and noticed that your work here is amazing. Would the reviewer userright be something that could help you at all? If so, I'd be happy to grant it. At any rate, keep up your great work! Best. Acalamari11:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Acalamari. Well, it must be frustrating for editors who want to improve articles to have to wait for their changes to go live. I guess the more people there are looking over the pending changes the better, so sign me up. I likely won't be doing a lot of it until after the end of January, though, because of (1) a busy Christmas season (2) heavy involvement right now in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/G13 rescue, and (3) an ongoing backlog drive at Afc right now. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Done. As for when/how often you'll use the tool, that's entirely up to you; what's important is that you have the experience required to use it properly. :) Best. Acalamari12:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that AfC as a project and as a purpose is going anywhere, although I do expect a lot of reform that will make things much harder for a sprint until all of the improvements are done and everyone has a chance to get use to the new system, whatever that may look like. I expect it will still be a system where new editors (with or without an account) will be able to submit draft ideas and get them cleaned up for publishing to mainspace. I also expect that it will still take lots of volunteer hours by those willing to look over the drafts of others (and promotional coi hoax plain nonsense that comes with it) and I hope that you will still be around when things start to get better on the other end of this reform. :) Happy editing and working through the G13 log in the mean time. Technical 13 (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Anne, I have commented again at that discussion. The problem is that everyone is talking nineteen-to-the-dozen in several different places and it seems as if some are simply afraid that their ideas may not be the ones to be adopted. We have all made significant progress with AfC over the past few months, not to mention my efforts in talks with senior WMF staff in HK. It will take time for it to be all sorted out, and it will need some additional new programming. It's only the current discussion that's going nowhere - what it needs is for further development of the ideas and solutions to be properly coordinated by someone - and preferably not the WMF whose staff seem polarised on this issue which is essentially a local one for the en.Wiki, and even more locally for the AfC regulars who know what they have been doing, are doing, and what they want to do. We need your continued support and input. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
If you say WMF wants Afc gone, then it will be gone, since they don't need consensus to act. I am not up for another round of being patted on the head and patronized as someone who can't accept change, and told to get used to it (HERE). It's pointless and I don't want a reputation as a whiner.
My experience with THIS has shown me that even if an idea has strong community consensus, nothing will be done about it unless the people doing the technical changes happen to be interested, which means that they are basically the only ones whose opinion counts, and I am not willing to get sucked in again to another pointless process.
While I (obviously) enjoy presenting my opinions and am quite happy to engage in discussion when my arguments are logically refuted, I hate being pushy. I have entered my !vote on the proposal and that should be enough.
There, I told you I didn't want to talk about it. It would have been inappropriate to throw this personal diatribe into the debate, and that's where my head is right now. Further comment would be bad both for me and for Wikipedia. If there is anything left of Afc at the end, I'll continue to work in it, and if not, as I said, there are other things to do. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
AFC submission for Edward Wheeler Scripture
Hi Anne - I was hoping to get your advice on the Edward Wheeler Scripture entry. The AFC submission ended up creating a duplicate entry of Edward W. Scripture. I'm guessing that there needs to be a merge or a redirect, but I am not sure which way it should go. I hear Scripture referred to as both Edward W. and Edward Wheeler Scripture. The new entry is certainly more developed than the Edward W entry. Any thoughts? Should I just start a discussion on one of the talk pages? Thanks! EricEnfermeroHOWDY!08:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, EricEnfermero. Well, it looks as though the new editor, instead of just adding to the article that you started, copied the text and went on from there. The new article is really an extension of the older one, so the two need to be merged. The result should be the same as if the article had been improved directly. This needs to be done right away, before someone else edits the older article and makes the merge complicated, so I am going to put in a request now. Once the merge is done, you can either make a redirect page for the other version of his name if the merging admin doesn't do it (and maybe one for "Edward Scripture" as well), or, if you think that the main article should be called "Edward W. Scripture" you can start a discussion on the talk page. It may not be that important, since with a redirect in place readers will be able to find it under either title. If you do start a discussion, be sure to add a talkback on the new user's talk page, or he/she may not see it. A friendly reminder to edit-in-place rather than copy-paste may be in order, too! Thanks for noticing this and I hope that you are happy with the result. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that. I was sleep deprived at the time and not sure if I had the easiest solution in mind. I sometimes check by the page of recently promoted AFC submissions and make minor edits. I was surprised to see that one, and at first I thought, "Did I actually start that article or did I just think about it?" Thanks again! EricEnfermeroHOWDY!19:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Hiked through the snow to cut down a Christmas tree yesterday. Comfortably warm in my centrally heated home, although the ice storm outside today is causing me serious hardship by coating the TV antenna and interfering with my reception of "McHale's Navy"..... —Anne Delong (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia Adventure
Hi Anne! As a stellar new editor (no longer really, 'new'), I wanted to hear your thoughts about a game we built to teach people how to edit. It is designed to pair well, lead nicely into Teahouse, and I'm curious what you think and if you have any suggestions. The Wikipedia Adventure. Hope you're well! Cheers, OcaasiOcaasit | c19:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear Ocaasi: I tried a little of it, just the first few screens, and here is what happened:
At first I was confused because I wasn't sure where to click. I suggest changing the words "It is happening" to something that invites a click - maybe "See it happening", or something like that.
In the section on Discover your special role, the phrase “each person's impact scales” is mathematical jargon, and I would suggest rewording for clarity - maybe "everyone's contributions add up" or "your work combines with that of many others", or even "we all pitch in", .
The "3 2 1 Challenge" – I never did figure out what this was about. It looked as though it was pointing to the orange ball, so I clicked there, which led me to a file.
At that point I was notified that I had a message so I opened a new tab so that I could look at the message without stopping the process. No luck though, it followed me to he new tab. I decided that :I would have to stop the adventure, so I clicked on the "X". No luck, though, the pop-ups kept going, and I eventually had to make several more attempts and close some tabs before it would go away.
Turns out the message was from Wikipedia Adventure.
As someone who as spent considerable time designing educational software is the past, I am probably more picky that must users, so please take these comments as a test report rather than criticism. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
Hey, Anne! I noticed in your posts on Kudpung's talk page that you're forgetting to use curly braces when you're trying to ping users: that is, you're typing [[U|<username>]], which just gives the username a piped link to the U article, rather than {{U|<username>}}, which would use the template to ping them, as one would expect. Anyway, just thought I'd let you know, as the square brackets of course won't actually ping people. Writ Keeper⚇♔06:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Writ_Keeper (how was that?), I guess I am not very observant. They seem to have found the discussion anyway, but I will remember next time....although I am sure that the U article is fascinating and I must take a look at it sometime. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Nah, it's a subtle difference, really. I think Kudpung was pinging them as well, so it probably didn't matter anyway. Just thought I'd let you know for future reference. And yep, that one pinged me jsut fine. :) Writ Keeper⚇♔06:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
virtual barnstar
I have never actually awarded a barnstar, and none of the current ones meet what i want to say here, but I need to express something dramatically outside my usual range of comment for the work you are doing in screening old AfC submissions. If I could design an award for it, I would do it as as specially designed award for individual courage and persistence in the face of difficulties and despite a general attitude of indifference, or more precisely, despite a general attitude that the problem is hopeless. WP is a cooperative project, but so much of the effectiveness of a cooperative project depends upon the work of individuals--sometimes isolated individuals who know what ought to be done (not that uncommon) and have the determination to actually do it (much less common), on a long term continuing basis. (so very much the rarer). You will have the gratitude of the thousands of people over the years who will want information on the subjects that you have saved from thoughtless deletion. They will never know how much of it depended on you. DGG ( talk ) 09:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Anne, everyone is still talking to you. Never underestimate how extremely important your work is for AfC. Just don't get burned out from it - relax a while occasionally :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
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.
Hello! Anne Delong,
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 please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
Earthworm Heart, 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.
A little puzzled. There's a book about the subject and an encyclopedia article." references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability"? Dlohcierekim 16:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, Dlohcierekim, that's why I postponed its deletion. The original submitter added some more references after it was declined, and then it was never resubmitted. I looked at the source code and I see that for some reason the submit notice has been surrounded with "NOWIKI" tags, which basically means "ignore this". Do you want to submit it now, (by clicking on the blue resubmit button), or would you rather that I did it? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
You could, Dlohcierekim, but there is a lot of Afc junk, templates, comments, categories, etc., to be removed and also the Afc script allows the easy addition of bibliographic persondata, Wikiproject banners, etc. Also, in it's present condition it won't pass WP:NPOV. If you edit it to remove the chatty promotional stuff, leaving just the facts, then submit it and drop me a note, I will accept it right away. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
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.
I mean article talks hanging out in cat afc submissions. eg, "Talk:2012 Judgement Day". Category:AfC submissions by date/19 January 2012 has several. Also, if I move a submission to article space, can I just delete the redirect left behind? If I find an afc submission that was declined only someone created an article in the interim, should I delete it? I've wasted time work on a couple of those for nought. Thanks, Dlohcierekim 16:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
About that talk page: it's a talk page of an accepted redirect article, so that's fine; it's appropriate and nothing needs to be done unless that redirect is deleted. It may be useful in case someone wants to talk about the appropriateness of the redirect.
No, don't delete the redirect. Often there are links to the article in discussions, or from the contributor's user pages, and these links will be broken if you remove the redirect. You would have to use "What links here" and change all of these before deleting the redirect. Happily, there is a bot that goes around fixing up these old "double redirects", so that with time they become unnecessary, but when the article is newly created they are still needed.
Duplicate articles are dealt with in a variety of ways.
(1)If the a single user submitted the article, and then shortly afterwards just got impatient and copied the article to mainspace, so that all of the information and attributions are in the mainspace article, the Afc one can be deleted under G6 with an explanation that there is no information or contributions to be saved.
(2) If the Afc article was edited by several editors, or has a lot of edits over time, or was copied to mainspace by someone other than the original contributor, then a historymerge is the way to go.
(3) If the Afc article is not related at all to the one in mainspace, it may have been declined as a duplicate, in which case the contributor will have been invited to contribute to the live article instead. I usually just leave these alone. However, if the main article is a stub and the Afc version is extensive and well referenced, you could accept the article with a slightly different name, and then change the stub to a redirect to the large article. There is also a complicated procedure for merging two articles, but I haven't tried it so I can't give advice on that.
I took a look at this. At this point I'd say it's somewhat borderline when it comes to notability. I wouldn't feel comfortable sticking it in mainspace, but I figured I'd leave you a note rather than decline it, since you've somewhat adopted it. Gigs (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Gigs. There are so many of these abandoned articles that I've been spending limited time on each one. I added some more news reports. Is this enough? If not I will keep looking. Don't worry about declining an article of mine; I know that I can always resubmit and, of course, there is no deadline. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Assistance with a submission
Hello Anne,
I looked over the list of hosts at the Teahouse and thought you wold be a good person to assist me in an article I am trying to have approved. The article can be found here: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/_Boxwood_Festivals_and_Workshops. While this festival and workshops has been around since 1996 it has not had a lot of referable media coverage. Most mentions are just a listing of workshops and festivals and references on faculty and participant's pages. Could you provide some assistance with the article?
Also, I have considered getting a list of the faculty for each location over each year, but there would be no reliable reference for this information. Would this be something that would be acceptable even without reference?
Please Note: If this is not the way I should solicit assistance for this article, would you please let me know how I should? I did not see any reference on the Teahouse pages regarding a preferred method to ask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksumwalt (talk • contribs) 19:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear Ksumwalt: I will gladly take a look at this, but it may take a day or so; I have a number of off-internet activities to do today. Listing all of the faculty would probably be considered promotional. If the festivals have marginal notability, a small article will be easier to reference successfully. It may be better to just write about the founder(s). This is only my opinion, though, and carries no more weight than other editors. Once your article is accepted, it will acquire a "talk" page on which you can discuss ways to expand the article with interested editors. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for looking at this, Anne. I noticed that Reference 7 and 10 (yours) are to the same article and that, among other things, you found additional references which I missed. I have not yet used a named reference to combine references 7 and 10 in case these are separate for a reason. Let me know when you believe this may be ready to go and either of us may submit it for another review. I am trying to track down copies of a couple periodicals which may have references but from what I have seen I believe these are simply listing the event dates in an upcoming workshops type section and not usable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksumwalt (talk • contribs) 16:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello again Ksumwalt. Sorry about the duplicate articles. I started working on it and then was distracted by having to shovel snow (sigh). I actually found several other references, but hadn't had time to figure out which ones were best for what. I will drop them on your talk page and you can see if you can use them. Don't forget to sign your posts by typing for tildes (~). The automatic signer doesn't always work. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Anne, again, thank you. I took a look at the references you supplied and have used a couple to add to the article. I will look at others as I have more time. I was trying to find something regarding the Diamond Jubilee Medal as Mr Norman received this in recognition for his work regarding the festival and I believe it adds to the notability. I recognize you are busy and appreciate the assistance. Please feel free to add more if you so desire. And also thank you for the note on signing the posts. I was looking for how to do that and didn't look low enough. Have a great New Year! Ksumwalt (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out to you that a user responded to your comments on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/American Jerusalem. I doubted that you would check an article that you declined for a response (I don't) and the article was re-submitted so I noted the response. Please consider responding to the submitter's comments.
