User talk:Anne Delong/Archive 6

Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

This the archive of messages posted on Anne Delong's talk page, January to March, 2014.


Happy New Year Anne Delong!

Happy New Year!
Hello Anne Delong:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 05:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

G13 undeletions

I have done the two you requested: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Irregular algorithm and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cem Ersoy. Best wishes for the new year! JohnCD (talk) 10:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, JohnCD. I am trying to keep up with the G13 deletions. Sometimes by the time I figure out if a submission should be saved, it's already deleted. In about two more months the first ones postponed are going to become eligible again, and I'd like to be done checking by then so that I can start working on some of them. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
No worries - G13 undeletions at REFUND are routine now. It continues to amaze me how people who have neglected their submissions for months or years (in at least one case, four years) rush to ask for undeletion as soon as their piece is deleted. Do they think that "being in Wikipedia", even with a rejection notice on top, is better than nothing, or do they just forget about it until prodded by Hasteurbot? And how do they know - does the system send an email?
Do you have a list somewhere of AfCs saved from G13 that could be articles if improved? If so, I would like to add Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tayfun Sönmez. The creator was given good advice, but only edited on one single day and may well not be back. JohnCD (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
JohnCD, all of the postponed submissions are here and they are also in a category which I haven't looked up. If this is a new one that wouldn't be on this list, you are welcome to add it to the list that I started before the templates were set up. It is at User:Anne Delong/Afc submissions for improvement. Or, if you are sure that the person isn't coming back, you could boldly move it to the new Draft space, where I believe (although I haven't been following the discussions) that they are trying to develop a more collaborative approach to drafts. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Good, thanks, I have added it. The category is Category:AfC postponed G13, and it seems that adding {{AfC postpone G13}} to the page automatically puts it in the category. JohnCD (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Aaaarrgh! The article already exists at Tayfun Sonmez. I don't usually forget to check that. Still, I know what to do next time. JohnCD (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Depending on how the histories looked you could have potentially WP:HISTMERGE, WP:REDIRECT, or go ahead and re-delete it. Hasteur (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Just a comment: Since others have been taging submissions for G13 in addition to Hasteur's bot, there are sometimes as many as approaching 200 articles in the CSD cat. I no longer stop to rescue articles, instead I just leave them for someone else to rescue or delete. I realise that this is both unfair to hard workers such as Anne and DGG, and that probably many admins just delete them anyway, but that's the best I can do, because at the moment, I'm chasing serial socks around the site and I appear to one of the few who is doing much accurate patrolling at NPP and notifying patrollers about their errors and their inability to identify blatant hoaxes and attack pages. The quality of NPPing is on a downward slope. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, Kudpung. I have been nominating a few at a time, since the bot is working at 1/4 speed, but if the nominations are building up that must mean that some admins are still on vacation, so I will stop except for copyvios. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Anne, I don't think for a moment that your occasional G13s have added much to the backlogs. I delete your G13s without further ado because I know you know what you are doing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I've been deleting some that were (1) so short, useless or offensive that no one else should have to bother with them, or (2) ones that could not be made into articles - not English, text copied from other articles, etc., (3) a few for which I asked at a Wikiproject and was told were no good. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I no longer tag anything except where I think it needs another tag a well, or if its in an area where I can judge better than most that i's impossible. The idea is, frankly, to not do anything myself that will accelerate the deletions. The rest, other people will get to, DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "violation of copyrights"?

What on earth are you talking about re my use of "copyright material"? I am the author of this term--PERIOD! I have a book on Amazon/Kindle with that title--and if you actually took the time to read what I wrote you would, I hope, agree that it is HIGHLY RELEVANT, and by blocking it you are preventing others from considering--I thought that was the purpose of Wikipedia? Jim Green — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimGreen (talk • contribs) 05:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by a talk page fan. When you or anyone else publishes a book commercially, JimGreen, it is subject to copyright restrictions. We can't do anything more than quoting a couple of sentences without violating copyright. It makes no difference that you are the copyright holder unless you formally release the work for free use under an acceptable Creative Commons license. Please see WP:CC-BY-SA for the legal language and WP:COPYVIO for the overall policy. In addition, how do we know that you are the actual author? You would have to verify your identity.
But another issue is that your book does not seem to meet our Notability guideline for books. I have searched and found no independent reviews in reliable sources. The term coined in the book also does not seem to be notable for similar reasons.
As for the purpose of Wikipedia, it is to create a free encyclopedia of topics that are notable by Wikipedia's standards. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of anything that anyone wants others to consider. Anne Delong may well comment also. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
As I explained last month "There is sometimes a period during which new terms deserve some recognition within articles of wider scope (before being considered to have their own independent notability). This also appears not to be the case here, although I did find a couple of references to the term in other publications." Please fully consider the explanations and advice being provided by editors here. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 09:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, JimGreen. After re-reading the text that you have posted on Trevj's talk page, I would add to what the others have said above, that what you had written is an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. The difference is that encyclopedias only publish verifiable facts, while essays have, as well as facts, opinions of the writer and arguments for or against a point of view. Some of your text is even written in the first person. The fact that it may be an interesting essay with valuable ideas doesn't make it suitable for Wikipedia. There are many outlets on the internet for people to publish their thoughts, ideas and opinions for others to consider - personal web sites, blogs, forums, social media sites, etc. —Anne Delong (talk) 09:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

S-Day article comments

Hi Anne,

Thank you for the comments. I am new to creating wiki articles so maybe I am approaching this the wrong way. I read the novel over the weekend and went to find out more about the author. I saw his wiki bio page which included other novels he has published. My goal was to write a short article that would link to the author's bio page so other readers could see some information on the book and a quick plot synopsis.

I used the wiki page for the book "The Firm" as my template. Based on your comments, would a better approach be to simply edit the author's bio page and put in a short description of the novel? I have looked for other reviews but the only ones I could find is on an Amazon page. I rewrote the review section per your suggestions since it does not appear that an Amazon link to the reviews would meet wiki's criteria as a reliable source.

Stardust727 (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Stardust 727

Hello Stardust727, and thanks for the work that you have put in on this. If you were unable to find any reviews, this may be why there was no article about this book. Book reviews are the most common documents for books, but there could also be articles comparing two books, or discussing the development of the book, or news about how it has been translated or made into a film, or analysis in a literature textbook, etc. Now, the book "The Firm" is quite a famous book, and I'm sure that written material is quite easy to find for that one!

If there is little to be found about the book, your plan to put a small summary on the author's page is best. Be sure to use your own words. It's okay to use the book itself to source a plot summary, but not for any opinions about the book. Next the title of the book can be made into a "redirect" page to the author's page, so that people can find it. Then later if the book becomes better known the redirect can be changed in to an article. You are right that a book-seller's description is not an independent source (although sometimes if there are other reviews Amazon will mention them and then you can find them). When you have finished adding information about the book, leave me a message if you need help to make the redirect page. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Anne,

I looked around and the problem is that few book reviews from the 1990's are available, unless they are major publications as you mentioned. Since the author is not well-known and the book was never used as the basis for a television or theatrical motion picture, there is relatively little data to be found via the internet. What I did find are some wiki pages dealing with the alternative history genre and a subsection specifically for WWII novels. These pages list the novels from the genre so the page could link to both the author page and be included in these other categories. I have edited the page to include relevant links to other wiki pages, removed the review section and added an external link section where there are reputable external websites (Winston Churchill, RAF, etc.). I also included links to other wiki categories. Do I simply resubmit the article or do I work with you on any changes/edits?

Thanks for your help with this project. I read a lot and was thinking it would be fun to either edit or create wiki pages for these books. I will hopefully figure out all the rules and proper etiquette at some point.

Stardust727 (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, Stardust727 . You should go ahead and submit it again; I will be (1)sleeping, (2)visiting relatives and (3)attending a music jam, and may not be around for a while. By the way, references in Wikipedia don't have to be on line. This likely won't help you with this book, since you read it recently and so won't have old news clippings about it. However, if you are ever writing an article about a topic that you found in an old print book or magazine, it's find to cite that as well as online items. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Anne. i am Niko. How are you ? and what is a blue grass musician? (Mudak568 (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)) Mudak568 (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mudak568. Here are a couple of examples of bluegrass music: [1] and [2].

I see that you are a new Wikipedia editor. Is there a particular kind of article that you are interested in improving? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea just yet of articals id like to edit..........How are you today? (Mudak568 (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC))
Mudak568, I am an active editor here, and I will be happy to answer any questions about Wikipedia, but I don't do the social media thing. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
-__- ok. how do you get links for wiki pages for example Kasta. to go on your user page? (Mudak568 (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC))
Just put double square brackets around the title. For example, [[Kasta]] will look like this: Kasta . If you want to make a list of pages that you visit a lot, you can put an asterisk (*) in front of each one to make a list, like this:
About your user page, Mudak568: If it looks as though you are using it as a personal web site it will end up being deleted, so make sure that it's about your Wikipedia activities, as mine is. If you like the Kasta page and want to know when it has been changed, you can add it to your watchlist by clicking on the little star at the top of the article. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2014 I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedia editor. (UTC)

Have you tried using Snuggle?

Hi Anne,

EpochFail created a tool called Snuggle designed to help our editors identify the various types of newcomers, and allow them to help the good faith newcomers in an easier fashion. Would you be interested in trying it out? It could be an ideal resource in finding newcomers and helping them.

Regards, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear TheOriginalSoni: I have heard of Snuggle and intend to try it sometime, but right now I just can't let myself be distracted from working on the G13 backlog. Hundreds of old Afc drafts are being deleted every day, and because of the recent holiday season and the Afc backlog drive, hardly anyone is checking them. This morning I rescued articles about a New York Ballet prima ballerina, a Tony-winning set designer, and an award-winning photographer, all of which would have been deleted within hours. Maybe in a couple of months, when this backlog has been reduced, or if more people join in the checking, I'll have some time. Thanks for thinking of me, it's something I would like to do. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
AfC Backlog is still increasing rapidly more than 100s of drafts were submitted each day but only few articles were reviewed and others are still waiting. The backlog has increased a record breaking 2200 submissions. I think more willing experienced editors are needed to eliminate such a huge backlog. Can't we do something ???. Jim Cartar (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think 2200 is a record since the current tools were written, but your point is made. I don't know what the record is, I've only seen it above 2100 a few times and I don't know if I've ever seen it over 2200. Besides, the real measure of the backlog is how is the oldest submission, after taking away "outliers." If 99% of submissions are less than a week old, that's great, if more than 1% are more than a month old without a good reason, that's bad. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charlie-Gibbs Marine Protected Area

Hi, Anne. I moved this out of main space. Does it need tagging for AfC. Dlohcierekim 18:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dlohcierekim: If the article is to be in Afc space, you can tag it with {{AFC submission|T}} . However, I am not sure that it's okay to unilaterally move an article out of mainspace. Usually these moves happen after a deletion discussion (There was likely a "contest this speedy deletion" button on the delete template). Have you contacted the article's creator? If you explain that the article was about to be deleted he/she will likely agree to the move. It looks as though the person was planning on adding to the article, and he/she may not understand what has happened. I have never actually done this so I may not be the best one to ask - maybe you can find a more informed opinion at the WP:Teahouse or the Wikipedia:Help desk. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It was either move it to AfC or be prepared to defend my decision to remove the CSD tag. (It was tagged for deletion 2 minutes after creation.) It looks like something that should be sourcible, but I came up empty. I figure with it at AfC, the creator will have time to research it in peace. The only reference they had was to a nearly unsourced article on French Wikipedia that had one sentence about this. The only other source I found was self pub. I let the creator know. I declined the speedy, so that should come as good news. Hopefully, they know sources? Thanks Dlohcierekim 22:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Well if's okay with the page creator, and you've tagged it as an unsubmitted draft, I guess you can just sit back and see what happens! It looks to me as though the French article isn't well sourced either. Maybe if the editor finds sources for this one, they can be used to improve the other. You may wish to read this page Template:New page for an additional option for another time. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Libre Clothing was accepted

Libre Clothing, 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.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

AnupMehra ✈ 14:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nair & Co.

Restored. JohnCD (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Need your help to restore article

Hello, dear Anne! I do not understand what exactly I did wrong but my article now lost some links and parts. I tried to add some new links that I found to fortify background. Could you please help me how to return all that texts? Like to return to the point before January,5th? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ola.solonenko (talk • contribs) 22:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, Ola.solonenko. You had a little mixup with the reference format. I corrected it. I also added some colons to indent a couple of your list items; if you don't like the effect, just take them out again. If you want to use the same reference just once, the format should be [1]. If you want to use the same reference in more than on place, put this the first time: [2] . The next time you use the same reference, just put [2] . I'm glad that you were able to find more references. Keep in mind that most Wikipedia readers aren't experts in your field, so try not to use a lot of short forms and jargon, and be sure to explain the product in as plain language as possible. Happy editing! —Anne Delong (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Farewell, My Love (band) (January 6)

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.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! JSFarman (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Islands of Africa

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Islands of Africa. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Infrasonic passive differential spectroscopy (IPDS) (January 7)

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.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! (t) Josve05a (c) 02:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Surrender The Fall

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at PEOPLE_FOR_ANIMALS_(PFA),_INDIA

  • The above article is submitted for creation at AfC but it shows in draft not Wikipedia talk page. So, there's no review option. Topic seems notable following sources provided. It still needs improvement before inclusion, though. I tried moving it from draft to Wikipedia talk and got this error message. Fix this? Thanks, AnupMehra ✈ 20:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Anupmehra: The reason that the title is on the blacklist is that it consists of all capital letters. Try moving it to "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/People for Animals. If there are other "People for Animals" groups elsewhere, add (India). Don't include the "PFA"; that can be added as a redirect later if the page is accepted. To have it reviewed, add this at the top of the page: {{subst:submit}}. That should do it! —Anne Delong (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: Thanks, Why it didn't come up in my mind? How could I be that much stupid? It is cold outside, perhaps that is why. Thanks, again. AnupMehra ✈ 21:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't blame yourself, Anupmehra. The blacklist error message is cryptic. The first time I came across this problem I had to ask three other editors before someone figured it out. It would help if the message said "This title is on the title blacklist because it has too many consecutive capital letters." —Anne Delong (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist (anime)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist (anime). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mobile Backstage (January 14)

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.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Stomachworm88 (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

sapience cleanup

Hello again Anne, happy 2014. :-)   With your advice, and help from Hafspajen, de-puff-ification is now close to complete. WT:Articles_for_creation/Sapience_(software)#Article Somebody found a quote in Hindu Business Line which allegedly justifies the "business leaders" peacock you pointed out. I was lazy and did not verify the source actual *says* that word-pair. Can you peek at this article again, when you have a few minutes please? Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, 74.192.84.101, the article is definitely improved. I am not an expert on business articles, though; I can only spot obvious things. The source cited about "business leader" doesn't have the word "business leader" or even "leader". It seems like a meaningless phrase. Aren't the people who would benefit from this software more accurately called "company managers" or something like that? The words "best" and "worst" bother me as value judgements. If the software really does call them that, I am appalled, but again that is a value judgement on my part. I would have said "on-task" and "off-task" or something like that. Anyway, I guess the article will have to be resubmitted to find out what reviewers who know about business articles think. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Afc review

So I take it you're one of the folks who review all the new articles? – Michael (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Michael. Yes, I review some of the new articles, particularly ones by new users who need some direction about Wikipedia's policies and conventions. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yahya

You moved this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yahya from user space to AfC. What you moved was not an article but an evident hoax or simply content the user may have wished to keep in his user space. I spent at least 1/2 hour looking through this article before realizing that it was duplicated from here. Do some due diligence next time, please. EagerToddler39 (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear EagerToddler39: I am somewhat perplexed by your complaint. I moved the submission to "Articles for creation" because the user had requested a review by adding a submission template (large yellow box) to the page. Moving prospective articles into the reviewing area is the normal first step for Afc submissions. The move is in no way an endorsement of the content, just a mechanical operation.
The next step is the review, which you did, and finding it to be a hoax, duplicate or whatever, you declined it. This is exactly what should have happened. I share your frustration at finding that someone has been wasting your time, but the someone was the editor who submitted it, not me; that's like blaming the mailman for the contents of a letter he delivered. This may have been submitted in good faith, though; sometimes editors don't understand that they should update an article by just editing it, and they copy pages to their user space, change them and resubmit them. It's up to the reviewer to catch that, and you did.
By the way, when I decide to review an article, one of the first things I do is put a sentence or two from the article into Google to check for copyright problems; that also usually finds duplicates right away and saves time. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

User:ABA 01853601/sandbox

Hi, There's a seemingly legitimate submission at the above sandbox, but it's somehow inside a comment, so it doesn't show up unless you click "edit". You might want to re-review with this in mind. Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Jakob, I missed that. I have fixed the problem and resubmitted it. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ahl al-Hadith

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ahl al-Hadith. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nikolina Kovacic

Player meets WP:SPORTCRIT. After some Croatian and German problems, I could take some basic information in order to have the article on en wiki. Is already in de, fr and pl wiki. Thanks for taking time to in WP VB. Osplace 02:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | PLACE OF BIRTH = Rijeka, SFR Yugoslavia)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Histmerge|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Delicate Steve}}
  • * Further Out/Perfect Pairs] Delicate Steve/Callers Split 7" (2012)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Histmerge template

I saw your note on Andy's talk page. A few months back, I updated Template:Histmerge so that complex instructions can be directly embedded in the template. Pages with this template are in a category that Andy and a few others monitor and act upon. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, davidwr, for the heads-up. Sometimes Wikipedia editing is like running up the down escalator. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Insaen Venom

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Voldemar Smilga

I noticed that you had just detagged a couple of AfCs that were pending deletion. I ran across one that was never reviewed and I think it has some potential. Can you take a look at it for me? Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Gogo Dodo, you edited it just before I had a chance to do so. It needs a little improvement (for example, success of classmates is not relevant). What I would do is ask at a Wikiproject, perhaps Physics would be best, for an opinion about whether the sources are reliable. If so, I would add a note to that effect and submit the article. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
That I can do. I'll head over to WikiProject Physics and see if anybody there wants to take a look. Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC D'estaville was accepted

D'estaville, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your work at, among other places, articles for creation, where you are a key driving force. As an aside, I think, now that you have a year and almost 30,000 contributions under your belt, that you would make a solid adminship candidate. I would be happy to nominate if that is a road you would ever consider taking. For now, happy editing, and thanks for all you do. Go Phightins! 18:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

When "Malik Muhammad Jahangir (2)" be done?

Dear DESiegel and Anne_Delong Kindly guide me that when my "Malik Muhammad Jahangir (2)" be done? I am curious and excited about it. My fault got delayed since I was new user and submitted two copies. Following the guidelines I did my best and entered reference, external sources and images. Looking forward to hear from you. --Whitepearl1 (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Whitepearl1: Since you created two copies of your submission, the one that will be reviewed is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Malik Muhammad Jahangir. The one with the (2) is an extra copy; please don't work on it. I looked at the references in your submission; the last two on the list appear to be good sources, although they don't say very much about Malik Muhammad Jahangir. The two above that in the list did not work; perhaps you can fix that while you are waiting. Please remember that information provided by the company (or group of companies) with which he is connected can't be use to establish that he is well known; only published independent sources such as news reports, business magazine articles, books, etc. You may want to keep looking for this kind of news report; the sources don't have to be in English. It's hard to say exactly how long it will take before the article is reviewed; there are over 1000 articles waiting right now, so it could be more than two weeks. I am not an expert about companies and businessmen, so I will not be reviewing the article myself. I wish you success. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Dialectic of Sex

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Dialectic of Sex. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Here is some nutritious protein to keep you going in your hard labors.

Lesion (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Blink, the Most Famous Elf Ever

Hi Anne, I have made a lot of edits to the page and think I have resolved the issues. Please take a look when you have a chance.

Thanks. Gwendanor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwendanor (talk • contribs) 14:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Gwendanor: I see that you have found a number of book reviews. That's great! Here are a couple of things that need to be done:
(1) The article is about a character in a book which doesn't have its own article. The reviews are mainly about the book. The article has a better chance to be accepted if you rewrite the lead section so that it is an article about the book ("The Christmas Tree Elf" is a children's picture book...) The title of the page can easily be changed. To keep the title you have, you would have to show that the character actually is the most famous elf, and I doubt that that's true, and the reviews don't say so. Another option would be to create another article about the book and get it accepted first and then submit this one again.
(2) Reviews on social media sites Wordpress sites in general are not accepted as reliable because the sites are are user-contributed. The fansite, for example, should be moved to "External links" and not used as a reference. Blogs are usually not accepted either, since they are usually personal sites rather than professional, although Alan Caruba does appear to be a professional reviewer.
  • (3) The hatnote should be removed - disambiguation is only needed if there is already another page with the same or almost the same title, and that seems unlikely here.

Anyway, since your article has just been submitted and there is a backlog of submissions right now, you will likely have time to make some of these changes before it is reviewed. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Solon Montessori School Founded by Mildred Gunawardena

The article I submitted was a modified text from my school's webpage, that I myself wrote. If this is the copyright infringement you have referenced to, I like to know. 

How else may I present this information?

Nelunika Gunawardena Rajapakse (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Nelunika Gunawardena Rajapakse: Editors of Wikipedia must edit as individuals, and can't represent a company or organization. If you wrote some text for your school, the school now owns the copyright to that text. If you own the school totally, then that means that you also own the copyright. Even so, you can't just add it to an encyclopedia article. You (or the school's administration) could, however, officially donate it by this process: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. At that point Wikipedia would immediately license it for use by anyone to copy, change or even sell, and you may not want that. Also, text that is suitable for advertising a school on a web site is probably written as a promotion for the school, and would likely not be accepted anyway. The most straightforward thing to do is to write a new article especially for Wikipedia, concentrating on the history of the school and specific facts about it (no promotions, aspirations, opinions, etc.), and backing the facts up with references to multiple news reports, magazine articles, books, etc., not connected to your school, to show that this is a well known school that has been written about extensively. If the school hasn't been written about, the article won't be accepted. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ken Tyler

I checked out my IIHF record book, Ken Tyler served as the head coach for Austria's men's hockey team at the 1994 Winter Olympics, and at 5 World Championships (4 at the top level). Is there a way that I should proceed to get this article stripped down to an appropriate stub? The rest of the article reads like a sales pitch, but as a hockey coach, he seems notable. Canada Hky (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Canada Hky. Go ahead and edit it until you think it's appropriate (adding your IIHF source, please, since not everyone has that). When you think it's ready, let me know, and I will use my Afc script gadget to accept it and move it to mainspace (unless you are familiar with it yourself). It's best to do it that way because the script makes it easy to remove all the comments and templates and add Wikidata and Wikiproject banners, etc. Thanks for taking this on. There are a lot of notable topics among the abandoned draft, but they almost all need work, and I guess we have to go at them one by one. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, I stripped it down to what I could verify and what makes him notable from a hockey standpoint. The article is much shorter now, but much more appropriate now. At some point, I will try to get back and add in his coaching record tables, but for now I think it stacks up nicely with his other contemporaries. Canada Hky (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
It's created now, Canada Hky, but it's an orphan. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I should be able to fix that, but probably not until later today. Canada Hky (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peter Nelson (Rugby Player)

Hey. I checked out the article at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peter Nelson (Rugby Player). We can assume notability for him because he has played professionally. There are a few more references now. There isn't much out there on him, but the article probably meets the necessary notability and quality threshold to move into main space even though it's only a stub. -- Shudde talk 11:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, its at Peter Nelson (rugby player)! —Anne Delong (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


CECTV-TV 5 (Grand Rapids)

It's an outright WP:HOAX. Kill it. Bearcat (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion. Thanks - the call letters should have clued me in. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cārvāka

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cārvāka. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Roque López

Hi Anne. Just a heads up to say I saw Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Roque López on your Afc submissions for improvement list. After a bit of tweaking, I've moved it into article space. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! The submissions have been disappearing so quickly that I haven't had time to reach out about many of them. Another couple of weeks and the giant backlog should be gone and I'll have more time for article improvement. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI

A proposal has been made to create a Live Feed to enhance the processing of Articles for Creation and Drafts. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to create a 'Special:NewDraftsFeed' system. Your comments are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 December 27

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 December 27. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Bubba Thornton

Traditionally our articles about track coaches include a list of the notable athletes they have coached. I do not have a source of this information, so I can't edit anything in myself. You seem familiar enough with the subject, maybe you would be able to document such a list. Sanya Richards-Ross comes to mind as a starting point. Trackinfo (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Trackinfo. I'm sorry, but I just saved the article from being deleted as a stale draft. I know very little about sports, but if you should need any help with articles about traditional, bluegrass and folk music... —Anne Delong (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Serpentor

Rather than deleting this, can we translate it? Bearian (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, it also has no independent reliable sources. However, anyone is welcome to rescue one of these old drafts; they are only being deleted because no one is improving them. If you believe that this is a notable band and are able to translate and add sources (or find someone who is willing), go ahead with my blessing! —Anne Delong (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Query answered

answered at Tennis Project. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Three Rivers of Tears

Namaste, Anne Delong. You have got at least one new message at the Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Please continue the discussion there!
Message added by Tito☸Dutta 08:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time.

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WADR

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WADR. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Giovanni Fontana

Giovanni Fontana (poet) Span (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Span. Interestingly, the article you found was posted the day after I left the message on the Poetry talk page.... —Anne Delong (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I saw your message on the poetry portal. Sorry that I forgot to post an update there. We took what we could source from the old Fontana article and used that. The rest of the old article is linked on the talk page. An Italian speaker will have better access to resources to add. Best wishes Span (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know what happened to it. Glad to hear the attribution was saved. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


Power-flow study

I can't tell what you did with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ETAP and Power-flow study. It appears you salvaged Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ETAP revision history but have we lost Power-flow study revision history?

I don't think we need an ETAP redirect to Power-flow study as the material I salvaged from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ETAP didn't specifically relate to the ETAP product that the submission was trying to cover. ~KvnG 04:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Power systems analysis is tangled up in this somehow also. ~KvnG 04:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Kvng. I agree that we don't need an article about ETAP. Also, there is already an article called ETAP which has nothing to do with this. So, I moved the old history into an article called Power systems analysis, which was what the transferred material was about, and made it a redirect to Power-flow study. The attribution you are looking for can be found in the history of the "Power systems analysis" article. I have added a template that announces this to thePower systems analysis page. Maybe I should have redirected it directly to the "Systems analysis" section of the article; that could still be done.
The Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ETAP has to be kept for now because there are links to it from discussions, but it's not in mainspace. After a while all of the links will be redirected to Power-flow study by a bot and then we can dispense with it. In fact, it looks as though a bot has already been at work, which is why it no longer redirects to Power systems analysis the way it did right after I moved the page.
I hope that I have explained clearly what I did. Creating a plausible article title and then redirecting to the spot where the material was merged seems to be a fairly standard practice, I think. 06:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Oops, I see that you were asking about the Power-flow study history. My answer is that I didn't ever edit that page. However, it appears to have plenty of history going back to 2004, so I don't think it's missing. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at Causa sui's talk page.
Message added 23:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

causa sui (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggesting a AfC draft for review

Hello Anne, I have observed that you are quite interested in reviewing AfC drafts. So, can you please review this draft. If you wanted to review this draft then please kindly notify me on my talk page. Thank you. Jim Cartar (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Jim Cartar: I am not very knowledgeable about politics or about India, so when I see items like this I usually refer them to Wikiproject India, and you have done that already and received better advice than I could give, so I will have to leave the review to someone else this time. Sorry. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
No problem.

I'm a AfC draft improver so if I get any other draft which maybe complete and needs review, then I can inform you if you don't mind. Jim Cartar (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine, although if its a topic I don't know anything about I may say no again. I am a Canadian musician, if that helps you decide. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Got it. Anything related to music, Canada and Maple syrup. :) Jim Cartar (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Screen Two

Anne, I restored it. A major series of BBC programs is overwhelmingly likely to be notable, and probably easy enough to source. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Hello, DGG. That's so, but there is already Screen Two, and the draft doesn't appear to be suitable for a history merge. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

OK,I'll check the two of them. I had not noticed. There's divided opinion how to handle it. I use G6, saying " The article is already present on Wikipedia ", some redirect to the article talk p. Here as elsewhere, the mechanics of the system are absurdly primitive & inconsistent. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it should be redirected unless content is moved from the draft to the article. Your G6 sounds better to me if the draft isn't useful. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikiproject Report

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on the Article Rescue Squadron for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day! buffbills7701 13:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

RookTorre - Review : Density of Air

Hello Delong

Opss sorry for mistake

wrong way

The article is really an expansion of the original Density of air (not a new article)

thanks

RookTorre (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, RookTorre, expand away! —Anne Delong (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/K Ravindra

Namaste, Anne Delong. You have got at least one new message at the Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Please continue the discussion there!
Message added by Tito☸Dutta 03:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time.

Charleswmaier new submission

I have not set up a page before. As I saved the page, the next message said in a few weeks or month, I would get an answer. I got an immediate rejection..? I must have missed an obvious detail? Can you guide me? Charles Maier — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charleswmaier (talk • contribs) 05:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Charleswmaier. Yes, there is something important missing from your article. Encyclopedia articles are basically summaries of information which has been published in reliable, independent sources such as news reports, books, magazines, etc. Wikipedia doesn't accept first hand knowledge. In this way, not only to the readers get some verification of the information, but articles are only included about subjects which of enough general interest to have been written about extensively. Your article had no references at all, so it couldn't be added to the encyclopedia the way it was. Usually you wouldn't get an answer so fast, but I just happened to be watching the page as the submission came in, so I thought you might as well know right away so that you could add the references. If you look at the submission page, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charles W Maier, you'll see a link in the pink box that takes you to a little tutorial about how to add references and citations to your article. Sources with text that has been written by you or by organizations connected with you shouldn't be used (not independent), and nor should social media sites, blogs, or other user-contributed sites (not reliable). Unfortunately, if independent editor-controlled publications haven't written about you, the article will not be accepted.
I read your submission, and I would advise you to be more specific about the carbon fibre information. It's pretty vague right now. Does the process have a name? Are the parts handmade or factory made? Who makes them? When and where did all this happen? etc.
If you find sources, but have trouble adding them after reading the suggested help page, I'll be willing to provide advice; you can also ask at the Teahouse, where you may get an answer more quickly because there are quite a few friendly advisers watching that page. Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 05:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anne D- I thought I would have more time to get it all done... I have a better understanding now. I will work on it and come back. Thank you!! Charles Maier

Please comment on User talk:Bgwhite

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on User talk:Bgwhite. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Mount Calvary (Anglican Use) Baltimore

Hi Anne,

This has been removed for alleged copyright violation. Can you please tell me exactly what text this is meant to have violated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rygbi7777 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Rygbi7777: You have written to me about this before, and the discussion about it is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anne_Delong/Archive_5#Deletion_of_Mount_Calvary_.28Anglican_Use.29_Baltimore_page
If after reading this you need more explanation, I would be glad to answer your questions. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I see that you are creating a new draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mount Calvary Church (Anglican Use) Baltimore. That's great, and as long as you have written the text in your own words rather than taking sentences or paragraphs from material written by others, there should be no problem with copyright. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anne: My mistake; I see someone is now raising issues regarding photographs, rather than text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rygbi7777 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Rygbi7777. Same problem, I guess. Whoever took the photos could decide to donate the copyright to Wikipedia, but if it's your church, you could always head out with your camera and take some fresh ones. Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Hi Anne,

Thank you so much for your constructive comments. I have added relevant references with their links to my submission American Journal of Experimental and Clinical Research. However the links for references do not connect with the external sources when clicked on, while the links under External Links do. Please advise to correct this. Thanks. Mamad15 (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mamad15. I took a look at your article and it seems that there were a bunch of extra unneeded characters in front of each URL, so I deleted them. The links work now, I think.

You may have misunderstood, though, about the references. Links to directories and search engines aren't what's needed. Wikipedia only has articles about subjects that have already been written about extensively. For the Journal to be accepted as the subject of a Wikipedia article, you need to add links to specific articles, written by people who have some claim to know what they are talking about, and who are not involved in publishing the Journal. For example, if there is a publication which is read by people in your field, and in it an author writes, "Journals X and Y are peer-reviewed and contain up-to-date research about the field of Z", or "A new journal has recently begun monthly publication in the field of X, under the editorship of Professors Y and Z", then this would be a good source to cite. The citation should have the specific author, title, date, name of publication, etc., just as would be in a bibliography in a journal article. Here's the Wikipedia article to read about this: Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)

Good luck, and I hope that you enjoy being a Wikipedia editor. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Outside Time

Hi Anne, I am a bit confused - I am trying to write an article about a sculpture that exists in the public domain. I can provide a confirmation that the sculptor has no objections to it and will release the rights on its image (as it is done on his personal page). There are several references to the sculpture already in the public domain. The article is strictly descriptive and I followed an example of a famous sculpture already on Wiki. So where did I go wrong? Thank you a lot for helping a newby!:) Best regards 1967A (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


Dear 1967A: Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! Three issues here:

  • THE TEXT: Your article was deleted as a copyright violation because it was substantially a copy of text published at http://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwart/article/Dimitar-Lukanovs-OUTSIDE-TIME-to-be-Unveiled-226-at-JFK-Airport-20140213#.UwwKUIVMxUo . This page has a copyright notice right on it, but even if it didn't, it would still be copyrighted text. If you want to write an article for Wikipedia, you will need to write new text, in your own words. Text written by someone else, or by you for another person or company or publication's use, can't legally be included in the encyclopedia. This is because any text you add to Wikipedia will be immediately licensed for anyone in the world to copy, change and even sell, so it's important that no one have a claim on it. Also, Wikipedia editors must write as individuals, not representatives of another person or organization.
  • THE IMAGE: It's good that the artist doesn't object to having a photo of the sculpture on Wikipedia, but there is another copyright issue here: the rights to the photograph of the sculpture. There are three possibilities: (1) You took the photo yourself, for your own use - This is the easiest one, because then you can go to the Wikimedia website and upload and donate the image. (2) The photograph was taken by another person, who owns the copyright - in this case the other person can either make an account on Wikimedia and upload, or you can do the uploading, and the photographer can send legal permission by e-mail using the procedure explained HERE. (3) The photograph was taken by another person commercially, and the copyright belongs to someone else, in this case maybe the sculptor or the airport. Whoever owns the copyright should follow the above donation procedures.
  • NOTABILITY: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means it doesn't have articles about everything in the world; its articles should be summaries (in the editor's own words) of material already published about a subject. This means that to be the subject of an article, the sculpture must have been written about substantially by several journalists or authors in edited publications. Press releases by the sculptor or the organization displaying the work don't count, and neither do user contributed sites such as blogs or social media. References to these write-ups must be included in the article as verification. If the sculpture is brand new, these written sources may not yet exist, so you may want to check first before going to all of the work of arranging image permissions, etc.

Whew! Aren't you glad you asked? I know all of this seems complex, but that's the only way that Wikipedia can maintain its free licensing policy. Good luck with your editing.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nair & Co. (February 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
  • Please remember to link to the submission!
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Hasteur (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


Teahouse logo
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!

A barnstar for you!

The Articles for Creation barnstar
A barnstar to you for reviewing at least 175 submissions during the WikiProject Articles for creation December 2013 - January 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks for contributing to the backlog elimination drive!
Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 11:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

Your submission at Articles for creation: Design Festa (February 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
  • Please remember to link to the submission!
Rinkle gorge (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mobile Backstage (February 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
  • Please remember to link to the submission!
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Hasteur (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation March 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Anne Delong:

WikiProject AFC is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1800 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.
Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 02:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

WT INB RFC

You are one of the primary contributors at WikiProject India noticeboard. There is an RFC. I don't think it'll go anywhere, still you may check: this. --Tito☸Dutta 13:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Anagnostis Agelarakis was accepted

Anagnostis Agelarakis, 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.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Mz7 (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Health Services Union expenses affair

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Health Services Union expenses affair. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC

Hi Anne, I would appreciate your comments over at a discussion we're having about recent mess over at AfC. It's about one article but the problems seem to be echoed everywhere in AfC at the moment. Thanks Anna (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Anna: I commented as you asked. I didn't see a mess, just the usual evolution of a Wikipedia article. If there are "echoes" you want me to comment on, you'll have to point them out. If you mean that there are hundreds of discussions going on about what is and isn't suitable in a Wikipedia article, I agree, but this happens outside of Afc as well. The main problem at Afc right now is the backlog of submissions, because if there were a quick turnaround a declined article would be much less frustrating. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Anne and thanks for your input. You very clearly explained the issue with the Recognition section – I had been struggling a bit to explain why it didn't sit well. I agree that the refs that were removed when this section came out could prove useful for further developing the article down the line, so it might be a good idea for me to retrieve them and store them on the talk page. And, as you say, we now have another interesting article! Thanks again. Libby norman (talk) 10:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
  • Please remember to link to the submission!
Sionk (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Moves (album) (March 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
  • Please remember to link to the submission!
Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Great Mountain Biking Video (March 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
  • Please remember to link to the submission!
Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For your detailed/thorough descriptions in a CSD tag making the delete decision quick and easy! Your hard work is very much appreciated (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Art Gallery of Ontario Artist-in-Residence) Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 13:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Ping

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shorea robusta seed oil is clearly copied straight from Shorea robusta seed oil. I can't decline it since you tagged it as "review in progress"...just wanted to let you know. Happy editing! (t) Josve05a (c) 15:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, Josve05a, I was checking it out when my kettle boiled and I stopped to make tea... I have declined it as a duplicate. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Brittany Wenger

Brittany Wenger, 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.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Mz7 (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

'Ballmarkahan' Castle‎

Hi, Anne. Thank you for moving my article into article space so speedily. You may not have noticed, but I moved Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ballmarkahan Castle to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ballymarkahan Castle, because "Ballymarkahan" was mis-spelt. I recommend speeedy deletion of the redirect. I would do it myself, but I can never get my head around the speedy deletion criteria. Regards, Scolaire (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Scolaire. I did notice it, and it's a good thing you did, because I may have repeated the error when I moved it to mainspace. It's best to leave the redirect for a while, because there are links to it on other pages, and removing it will break the links. After a while a bot will come along and fix up the double redirects, and when there are no more left I will try to remember to delete it. If not, it's not doing any harm. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh. Okay then. Scolaire (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dr. Riley Senft (March 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
  • Please remember to link to the submission!
Schwartzenberg (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Akachukwu Nwankpo (March 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
  • Please remember to link to the submission!
AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Comic Book Girl 19

Hi there, I was wondering if you could tell me where the Talk or Project page has gone for the CBG19 AFC? It seems to have disappeared from the list of AFCs but no reason has been given for its deletion. If it has been deleted because of a simple error which involved me cutting and pasting it onto the Project page, I think it is rather extreme to delete the entire AFC. I can find no links of it now in my own personal account to work on it any further. I trusted Wikipedia would at least have a history of the page to work on. Could you please direct me to a working AFC page. Thank you. Angela MacLean (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC) Hello talk. I asked for the deletion of the extra copy, but the original has been deleted too, and I think this is a mistake or misunderstanding. I will inquire of the admin who deleted it and see if I can get it back for you. I can't retrieve it myself, because I am not an admin, so I'm afraid that you will have to wait until he is on line. Sorry! —Anne Delong (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology - there's no need, we all make mistakes : ) With a quarter million subscribers, I think CBG19 will likely end up with a few extra media jobs and the occassional ISBN refs to her name. So hopefully the admin will be able to get me the original bio for relisting or storage. I think she's just about...just about...encyclopedic. Thank you once again for your help. Angela MacLean (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I've just had it returned - all's well. Angela MacLean (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For helping otherwise doomed articles at WP:AfC make their way to the mainspace. — MusikAnimal talk 22:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)



Your submission at Articles for creation: Don't Drive Here (March 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
  • Please remember to link to the submission!
— MusikAnimal talk 23:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear MusikAnimal: Thanks for finding the existing Don't Drive Here article. It was created four days after I submitted the Afc draft (one more bad effect of the backlog). Since the new article was just a small stub, I have added material from the draft, moved it to Don't Drive Here (television series) and turned it into a redirect. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good! Thanks and cheers — MusikAnimal talk 00:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Health Services Union expenses affair

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Health Services Union expenses affair. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)



March 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Histmerge|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Australian Plainhead Canaries}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *[http://www.thebandfm.com/Page.asp?PageID=1226&SiteNodeID=272 The Band FM webbsite

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Thailand has it all stitched up".] ''Bangkok Post'', 18 November 2012.<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> He was raised in [[Paris]] and currently (in 2013) lives in Bangkok and Chiang Mai, [[
  • edu/doc/edc/122_sup-de-luxe-francais.pdf InstItut supérIeur de MarketIng du Luxe - EDC Paris]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Thailand has it all stitched up".] ''Bangkok Post'', 18 November 2012.<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> He was raised in [[Paris]] and currently (in 2013) lives in Bangkok and Chiang Mai, [[
  • edu/doc/edc/122_sup-de-luxe-francais.pdf InstItut supérIeur de MarketIng du Luxe - EDC Paris]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


March 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Histmerge|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Australian Plainhead Canaries}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *[http://www.thebandfm.com/Page.asp?PageID=1226&SiteNodeID=272 The Band FM webbsite

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Thailand has it all stitched up".] ''Bangkok Post'', 18 November 2012.<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> He was raised in [[Paris]] and currently (in 2013) lives in Bangkok and Chiang Mai, [[
  • edu/doc/edc/122_sup-de-luxe-francais.pdf InstItut supérIeur de MarketIng du Luxe - EDC Paris]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Thailand has it all stitched up".] ''Bangkok Post'', 18 November 2012.<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> He was raised in [[Paris]] and currently (in 2013) lives in Bangkok and Chiang Mai, [[
  • edu/doc/edc/122_sup-de-luxe-francais.pdf InstItut supérIeur de MarketIng du Luxe - EDC Paris]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC draft promoted after it had been deleted at AfD

I notice you promoted the article on Francois Russo which had been created by the subject and had been edited at AfC from Sept 2012 to May 2013. It had subsequently been copied into mainspace and was then deleted at AfD in July 2013: [3]. AllyD (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, AllyD. Before beginning to fix up the article I asked for an opinion at Wikiproject Fashion, and was told that the topic was notable. Since then I have added quite a few more references, and removed a great deal of promotional detail. Since I'm not an admin, I can't see what condition the article was in when it was deleted, but hopefully it is much better now. Since you were one of two people who opined that it should be deleted, what do you think of it now? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

The Citation Barnstar The Citation Barnstar
For meritorious service in salvaging Adnan Virk from unreferenced perdition. Bearcat (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


AfC Matador (album)

Dear Anne I have just lodged a formal complaint with Wikipedia against the editor User:RadioFan for rejecting the Matador (album) article we have both worked on for a second time. Many thanks for your help in rescuing this article. Best regards Carlofantom (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Carlofantom: In response to your note I continued to make improvements to the article, but you cut the old version and copied it into the encyclopedia, wasting my efforts. Copy-pasting is not the right way to do it. If you want to move the article into mainspace, you should use the "move" function instead; that way there is only one copy and your older edits (and mine) aren't deleted with the leftover draft. Will you give me permission to fix this up for you? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Anne, please do that. My apologies for doing it wrong. Carlofantom (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The AFC is close but needs a bit of work before accepting into the main article space. Please see latest comments there. Once those concerns are addressed, particularly the use of primary sources and some really good reliable sources that were simply pasted into the reference section without actually being used to create the article, the article can be accepted.--RadioFan (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, RadioFan. I agree with you that the article needs more work, and I would have been happy to continue working on it in Afc. However, Carlofantom has decided to move it into mainspace, as is his/her right, so I am helping to fix the copy-paste problem, since I can't go on improving it until that's done. Of course, in mainspace the article may be tagged for Afd, but I will continue to work on it to prevent that because I believe that it's a notable album. By the way, sources "simply pasted into the reference section" are "general references" and are perfectly acceptable except in the case of biographical facts about a living person, direct quotations or controversial material that's been challenged. (see WP:GENREF and WP:MINREF.) Articles shouldn't be declined because of the presence of these. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Review question

Dear Anne, thank you for reviewing my submission. There is lots of material, including pictures, receipts, photos, catalogs, etc. How can I make this available to you for review? There is nothing conflicting about the information, but it was not previously public, nor was there any interest by the individual in question, for that to change. At least he is not against it now.

What is the procedure for reviewing additional info and documentation?

Thanks G — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ac driver (talk • contribs) 14:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Ac driver: I had to wait until the Sinebot told me who you were before I could figure out which article you were talking about, since I have reviewed thousands of articles and you didn't give either the name of the article (I presume it's Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Miro Zoric) or your username. I will write to you about this later today, but right now I am rushing off to a St. Patrick's Day parade to play on a float, so I am out of time! —Anne Delong (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Anne,

I am new on Wikipedia, so thank you for your patience and assistance. By all means, enjoy the parade. Leter on, just let me know how to provide some of the material. While his early work was mainly covered by NDAs, those have all expired. There is substantial documentation, imagery, etc. He will not want to actively participate, since he is not the type, but won't withold the information, if I know exactly what to ask for. I am able to take pictures of documents, photos, artifacts, etc.

You will notice that the entire global body on the subject always only talks about vague modern "power electronics", without ever mentioning who actually designed the exact electronics which you find in factory or vehicle drive inverters. You will find that in the past, you would always find details about batteries in early cars, yet not much specific about drive inverters, other than naming a head of the program, or someone on the receiving end of his tech transfer.

In general, this is being put on, so it can all be publicly challenged. It is time for these details to be made public and also scrutinized in full. Everyone who knows about it has been asking why this isn't online and on wiki yet. Because the gentleman is very reserved, he would never actively assist this. But, he is at least no longer complaining against my attempts to put information to their rightful place. So just let me know how to best do that and how to provide you with the materials, when you have the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ac driver (talk • contribs) 15:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Ac driver: I'm afraid that I have unwelcome news for you. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and and encyclopedia is a collection of articles which are condensed information taken from published sources such as books, news reports, academic journals, magazine articles, etc. Original research, promotion of new ideas and information from first-party sources such as interviews, personal memories, unpublished letters, etc., are not allowed. Wikipedia depends on the integrity and fact-checking skills of professional editors and journalists, who look over information carefully before publishing the documents we use as sources. Because of this, no encyclopedia article should be based on unpublished material that you have at hand. If there is little already published information, Wikipedia may not be the proper venue for your efforts. Perhaps instead you should create a web site, or publish an e-book. These would have the advantage that you could put anything you want in them, including your own ideas and analysis, whereas on Wikipedia any information that is not verified is routinely deleted.
You are welcome to ignore this advice and continue to work on your encyclopedia article, but I request that you first read WP:Five pillars before making a decision. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anne, thank you for the info. I was just explained by your colleague, that Wiki only considers published info, not documentation, which is quite a limitation and does not inspire much confidence in Wiki (to myself, as a routine reader), due to knowing what goes on in publishing circles and cross referencing, favors among authors, to meet (and only for that reason) criteria for publishin and with it credits and points... I assumed original documents would be sufficient, especially when provided for public scrutiny. I don't know if I will proceed, since none of this really inspires. The feeling based on the mechanism if verification used, is that self promoting fakers, cross referencing each other get published and people actually bringing breakthroughs, especially if not of self promoting nature, aren't mentioned on Wiki. I thought Wiki was different in precisely that manner. That actual documentation could be published and anyone would be free to dispute or add to it. Wiki may, as you mentioned, not be the correct venue for that afterall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ac driver (talk • contribs) 07:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Socialism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Socialism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

History merge

Hello Anne. You've asked for a history merge here. Can you explain what page is to be merged with what other page? And where do you believe the cut-and-paste took place? It looks like you performed a normal article move when you cleared the editor's sandbox, so the history under Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/James Hay Partnership (2) includes all the work done since the creation of the current draft article by User:C5mea on March 15. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston: As it says in the orange box, I am asking that an older submission, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/James Hay Partnership be merged with the newer one, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/James Hay Partnership (2). The names are similar, so perhaps you didn't notice that they are two different pages. The user copy-pasted the text from the original submission into a second submission (which I marked with a (2)). Since the original was by a different editor, the two should be pasted back together to to preserve the original attribution. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I have done the histmerge. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Great. That will prevent confusion between the two submissions. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at RadioFan's talk page.
Message added 18:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RadioFan (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

John Baldoni

Hello Anne. You've tagged this article for a histmerge with the AfC draft at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Baldoni. This merge can't be done due to parallel histories. Would you consider tagging the AfC draft for G13 speedy deletion? See your edit here from September 2013 which says you are postponing G13. I've checked the history of both articles, and nothing important will be lost (or left unattributed) if we keep only the new article. The creator of the AfC draft also contributed almost the same material under his own name in the John Baldoni article. The full article survived an AfD in August, 2011. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston: I am very sorry to have wasted your time. I thought that I had compared the histories, but I guess I misread them. The original postpone was done at a time when the old submissions were being deleted so fast that there wasn't time for a proper check before postponing, and only now when the backlog is mostly gone am I having time to deal with the ones I postponed (here's my little list). Anyway, I have taken your suggestion, reversed my postponing edit and added a db-g13 template to the page. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Jandwala Bagar

I have stubbified Jandwala Bagar due to much of its content being unsourced. I feel this qualifies for an article per WP:GEOLAND. Thanks for posting this at the Noticeboard for India-related topics, and please continue to make improvements to the article. Happy editing, NorthAmerica1000 19:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, NorthAmerica. I agree; some of the contents were promotional and there was some excessive detail anyway. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
checkY Thanks for the reply. NorthAmerica1000 19:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Muthunur

Thanks for the source you added. Actually I'm also trying to add some sources but when I clicked to save Your edits were not saved. Anyways, I was actually coming here to let you know that I have moved the draft to mainspace, but you already know that. Jim Carter (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

One edit left behind

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at WP:HD.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The draft you posted

Thanks for posting this AfC draft at the Noticeboard for India-related topics, I have worked on it and now it is ready to move. I can't move it today, it is already midnight here so I will do that tomorrow.

Please continue positing old abandoned drafts at WT:INB. Happy editing, Jim Carter (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


Hello again, Jim Cartar. I have a long list of drafts that I have saved from deletion. (User:Anne Delong/Afc submissions for improvement) I've been going though them and improving them, but there are too many for me, so I am trying to interest people at various Wikiprojects into pitching in. I am going through the drafts in order, and I'm working on the ones that I postponed last September because they are the next ones to be nominated for deletion. I'll continue to post India-related ones as I come to them, but if you see any on the list that catch your interest, don't feel you have to wait for my post. The articles that you have worked on are significantly improved. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I will try to work on them.
I have created a userbox for people like you. ({{User:Jim Cartar/AfCImprover}}) So, I was thought that you will like to put this on your userpage. Jim Carter (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Please add some more references to this AfC draft so that I can move it to mainspace. Thank you. Jim Carter (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

'Toronto Star' and 'Genealogy'

Hello Anne Delong

After looking at your extensive User work there are a few areas which are of particular interest to me. The 'user page' box I liked so I pinched a copy.

Then the 'Toronto Star' notice and 'Genealogy' article - I am heavily into Ancestry research. Especially re Toronto - where my mother had a life-changing experience in 1926. Long story which involved some sort of bigamy and deportation for the male person !!!

Would you please use the Wiki email feature so we could talk about this - Special:EmailUser/Username.

Best wishes - Tfitzp (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

PS the email seems to work Tfitzp (talk) 10:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear Tfitzp: If this is about anything to do with Wikipedia, I would prefer that you write about it here on the Wiki. I do not have a subscription to Ancestry.com, so if you were going to ask about that, I know less that you, I'm sure. Also, I am not from Toronto; our local library just happens to have a subscription. Having said all this, if you want me to look up information in the Toronto Star I am happy to do this; my e-mail link works too. For genealogical research queries about Toronto, the best place to inquire is the Toronto branch of the Ontario Genealogical Society (http://torontofamilyhistory.org/). I haven't done any Toronto research myself. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear Anne - thanks for the reply - it was just a long shot on seeing a slight connection with Toronto. I have some good contacts there already but may come back with T Star requests. Yours Terry. Tfitzp (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:AFCHRW

Hi Anne!

As you're probably aware, for the past few months I've been working on a complete rewrite of the Articles for creation helper script. I've now reached a point where the new script is relatively stable(ish). Since you're a highly active AfC reviewer, I figured I'd reach out to you before further publicizing the script to ask you to give the new script a whirl in your day to day reviewing. Complete installation instructions are at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Helper_script/Rewrite#Running_AFCH_on_enwiki (don't worry, it's not hard!), and I'll be happy to hear any and all feedback you have to offer! There's a "Give feedback" link in the upper lefthand corner of the review panel at all times, which you can click to easily give feedback without having to leave the page you're reviewing.

Thank you so much for taking time to look at this and help shape the future of AFCH and AfC! Theopolisme (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Theopolisme, thanks for letting me know about this. I'll try it out. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kamalapuram

Hello again, this draft has been move to mainspace under the name Kamalapuram, Khammam. Thank you. Jim Carter (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Jim Cartar. You can see that I would never be able to work on all of these articles, and I am finding new ones every day. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Welcome. You find new ones every day & I will try to improve-move drafts everyday, so that I can reduce your workload. Jim Carter (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Orange County Fair Speedway

Anne,

Thank you for reviewing my submission on the Orange County Fair Speedway so quickly. I apologize for posting the copyrighted material. I now re-read the guidelines and will go back and edit my submission and write it in my owns words. I work for the speedway there in Middletown, New York and look forward to fixing the errors and resubmitting the article abiding by Wikipedia's guidelines.

I appreciate you not deleting my article. Will fix and resubmit soon.

Take care.

Jeff Lambert - OCFS PR Director Jeff Lambert (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Jeff Lambert: I didn't delete it because I only found part of it to be copyrighted - but you may know of more that needs to be replaced. Also, please note that the article won't be accepted until it has a lot more in the way of independent references - news reports, magazine articles, and of course the book. I should have mentioned that on the page and I will add it now, since you may as well fix both problems before resubmitting. Thanks for declaring your conflict of interest in this article. Don't forget that once it's in the encyclopedia other editors will be adding to and changing the article, and that the purpose of the article is general information and not to promote the speedway. Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Anne,

I re-wrote my article on the Orange County Fair Speedway and resubmitted it for review. If it is denied again, may I please continue to work on my article? I am interested in expanding it, getting others to contribute to it and writing more articles about the people in this article.

Thanks for your feedback and for all of your help so far. I appreciate it.

Jeff Lambert (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Jeff Lambert: Don't worry, as long as it appears that you are improving the article according to the reviewers' advice, it won't be deleted. However, reviewers are fairly fussy about submissions that are posted by editors with an interest in promoting their subject, so you'll have to make sure that there is no language in the article that appears written to make the speedway seem important or to urge people to attend. Information from PR people is justifiably taken with a grain of salt. I would replace the Amazon link to the book with one from Google Books for this reason. If you want to have other editors help or give their opinions, you could post about it at Wikiproject Motorsport. Also, while waiting for the review, please keep looking for more independent sources, ones that have been written by people not connected with the speedway. News reports and auto racing magazines are the most likely sources, and not only those with glowing praise - problems and controversies should be included too.

Good luck, and I hope you enjoy improving Wikipedia and will continue to do so beyond just as part of your job. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Anne, (3/25/14 - 11:48 EST)

I had a quick question for you if I may. I re-wrote my OCFS article in my own words and re-submitted it the other day. I was wondering if when re-submitting an article does it just go back into a submissions pool or do you personally go back and review it?

Also, the thing that confused me when I first made the article last week was another page that was on Wiki about the Orange County Fair (New York), not the speedway itself like my article. That particular article has excerpts printed word for word from a website pertaining to the Orange County Fair Speedway. I was just wondering if that particular type of article permits the use of material copy and pasted into the Wiki article like that? I was wondering because I did the exact same thing and my article was denied for do so. Just curious, that's all.

Thanks for your time and for your knowledge, I appreciate it.

Jeff Lambert (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, Jeff Lambert. When you fix up an article and resubmit, it goes back into the queue. I don't know anything about motor sports (I am a musician and more of a station-wagon kind of person); I just pointed out the obvious problems that any experienced editor could see. It was just by accident that I happened to notice problems with your submission shortly after you posted it. The second review will take longer because there is a backlog of submissions. (You can see them HERE, but don't click unless you have high speed internet - it's a long list).
About the other article: Duplication of websites is only allowed if (1) The web site text originally came from Wikipedia in the first place, and says so, (2) The web site text is from a document that's so old that it's not copyright any more, and (3) The holder of the text has explicitly and publicly agreed to license the text for anyone to use, display, change or even sell. Sometimes people come along and add copyright text to Wikipedia and no one notices for a while, because there are over four million articles. Sooner or later, though, someone will delete a page that's mostly copyvio, or just remove the copyright material if it's just a small amount. Now that you have pointed this out, I will have to report it, UNLESS, while you are waiting for your review your decide to take on the task of fixing up this article. It has also been tagged for lacking reliable sources, which is another reason it could be the subject of an "Articles for Deletion" discussion. What do you say? Are you willing to take this on?
If you do improve the fair article, don't write too much about the speedway, because one of two things will happen with your speedway article: (1) Your article will be accepted, in which case you just need a little bit about the speedway in the fair article and a link to the speedway article, or (2) The motorsport experts may decide that the speedway isn't notable enough for an article separate from the fair article, in which case you can move some of your speedway information into the fair article. In the second case, what happens is that a "redirect" title is created so that people who type in a search for the speedway would be sent to the article that has the information. In either case, your work will not be wasted. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Anne, 3/25/14 1:37pm

Sure, I can re-write that other article about the fair. I just found an old newspaper article written in 1982 on how the fair started back in the 1800's. I will go ahead and re-write that article. It will be fun.

Thank you very much!

Jeff

Jeff Lambert (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Ha! Gotcha! Watch out, now, it's addictive.... —Anne Delong (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kothapalem

Hello again, this message is to let you know that this draft has been improved and moved to mainspace today. Thank you. Jim Carter (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

BTW can you please archive you talkpage i.e. this page. I'm having trouble loading so long page. Thank you. Jim Carter (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Denis Kestell Yorath was accepted

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

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

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SarahStierch (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Practical Boat Owner

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Practical Boat Owner. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Xodus One Foundation

Just read your comments. Aren't external links important to reference the topic being discussed? Especially when those on Wikipedia are biased?

Appreciate your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GravMod (talk • contribs) 02:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, GravMod. There's a difference between references and external links. References confirm information about the topic, from independent sources such as news reports, magazine articles or books. When they are placed in paragraphs they are surrounded by ref tags so that they appear in the reference section, like this: <ref>[http://reliablesource.com "Title of the article". ''Name of Publication'', date</ref>.

External links, on the other hand, are links which lead directly to other web sites. Ones that are actually independent information sources should be changed to reference format as demonstrated above. Ones that lead to the web sites of organizations, companies, self created biographies, etc., are considered promotional and aren't allowed in the paragraphs. A few particularly relevant ones can be listed in an "External links" section underneath the reference section.

I'm not sure what you mean about Wikipedia articles being biased. Wikipedia articles should only have information, not opinions. If you see one that you think has incorrect information, you can change the information provided that you provide a reference to a neutral source (news report, book, magazine or journal article, government document, etc.), not a web site of a related organization. An organization's own web site is hardly ever neutrally written, because its main purpose is to promote the organization.

I hope this clarifies the situation. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank I will rewrite the references/links. Re biased, articles can be factual but biased if they don't present all points of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GravMod (talk • contribs) 03:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear GravMod: Thanks for agreeing to improve the article. Your article could be reviewed at any time; if it is declined before you finish your changes, just read the decline reasons, continue improving it and submit it again. Oh, and by the way, when you leave a message on someone's talk page, your should sign your message by typing four tildas (~). The automatic signer isn't reliable. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Will do, thanks again GravMod (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Foodie.fm

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Foodie.fm  →  Foodie.fm checkY. NorthAmerica1000 01:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

That's great! —Anne Delong (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC The Great Mountain Biking Video was accepted

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

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

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Ronald L. Mondrush

I have resubmitted the page with references. In addition to the references noted in the resubmission, Ron has asked to reference several letters of recommendation from notable people such as the Manager of Styling at Nissan Motor Company, and the Buick Motor Division Advanced Concepts Manager. Can you advise on submitting these as marks of notability? Also, pictures of all vehicles noted in the article will help immensely in showing the work and importance of Mr. Mondrush and his company Synthetex. I would like very much to imbed those as soon as possible. Many of these images note the company name, Synthetex, with signage positioned with the vehicle. Thank you,Ronald L. Mondrush 17:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delaneys1 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 28 March 2014‎

(talk page stalker) See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for_creation/Help desk#Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles_for_creation/Ronald L. Mondrush and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ronald L. Mondrush for other comments on this submission. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I am presuming that this note was left by User:Delaneys1 who created the article. It seems as though you have already had an answer to this at the Help Desk, but I will reiterate: Personal references are the opposite of what's needed to demonstrate notability for encyclopedic purposes. Instead what's appropriate are news reports, articles in magazines, chapters in books, etc., which have been written independently by journalists or other authors, and checked for accuracy by the editors of the publications. Notability can't be "inherited" by being acquainted with or recommended by well-known or influential people.
If little has been written about Mr. Mondrush yet except by people connected with his company and his circle of acquaintances, an encyclopedia article is premature. If there is a substantial amount of published information to draw on, the personal references aren't needed.
If you are adding images to Wikipedia, make sure that they are ones that you have taken yourself or of which you personally own the copyright (not ones that are company property, unless the company donates them (see WP:Donating copyright material). Images don't help to demonstrate notability, but a small number are nonetheless valuable to illustrate information in an article.
I hope this clarifies the situation. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/mallekan

This message is to let you know that the AFC draft has been created under the name Mallekan. Thank you. Jim Carter (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


Larry Bundy Jr Article =

Hi there, you recently rejected the article on notability and also added a link to what makes a notable person. Although he is known more on British television, I can't see anything on internet fame. Even more so when stubs with even less information and notability such as Smooth McGroove exist. Should that be an article for deletion now? FirecrackerDemon (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, FirecrackerDemon. There's a difference between declining an article and nominating it for deletion. When an article is declined, the editor can add more references to sources and resubmit. He or she can also call on others at the help desk (or if the person is known on British television, maybe ask for advice at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television.
About internet fame: It doesn't matter to Wikipedia what exactly the person is known for; only that journalists and authors of published books, magazines, newspapers, etc., (professional writers with editorial oversight) have written extensively about him or her. There are plenty of people who are well known for what they do on the internet, but if only individual people on blogs, wordpress sites, facebook, etc., have written about them, it's likely too soon for an encyclopedia article.
About Smooth Groove: Sometimes articles are added to the encyclopedia and hang around for a while before someone notices that the references aren't up to standards. When this happens, first the editors make an internet search to see if there are articles that could be added as sources. If none are found, then an editor could nominate the article for deletion. What happens then is that the article is posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and for a week or so editors who have time look it over, and once again try to find sources. If none are still found, then article is then deleted. If you think that the Smooth Groove article has poor sourcing, you would first have to try to improve it, and then you could list it at Afd and see what happens.

I hope this explanation is clear. The article about Mr. Bundy can always have more references to reliable sources added, and then be submitted again. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you ever so much for your help in the matter, It's been of great benefit for the resubmission. So thank you ever so much again!
Could you possibly look at the Smooth McGroove article though? I don't want to nominate it for a deletion without further opinion, but it certainly feels like it wouldn't have passed your approval n context. But thanks ever so much again for all your help!!! FirecrackerDemon (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Heads up! (Lorraine Silver)

Regarding Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lorraine Silver: The article is a copyvio of www.lorrainesilver.com/about.html‎. I was about to decline, but see you marked it. So to spare you a bit of time... 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, 78.26. I just marked it so that I could run the Duplication Detector at my leisure. I am a slow typer. I had already found the site, but thanks anyway. Isn't it great that the queue is getting small enough that two reviewers are looking at the same submission? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ reference stuff here
  2. ^ a b reference stuff here