User talk:Anne Delong

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation.2FNoorpur_Muzbida_Harsana.
Message added 03:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito☸Dutta 03:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Namaste, there is one new message at the same page. -=Tito☸Dutta 04:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• There are new messages at the same page. --Tito☸Dutta 20:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mac & Devin Go to High School may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {plot summary removed as a copyright violation - see talk page for details)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

afc redirects

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Jon Charles Altman which you marked for deletion as " an incorrectly left-over redirect," was rather a redirect that erroneously redirected to the article , instead of to the article talk p (which I fixed). As I understand it, the procedure there is that such redirects to the article talk p. are deliberate as a way of tracking what happens to the AfCs. Personally, I think the whole AfC structure is absurdly confusing and in need of redesign, at least based upon the frequency of my own errors-- I know I get the various steps mixed up at least 5 or 10% of the time when I work there, and I have been known to skip steps and just move pages where they ought to go if I can't figure out what is supposed to be done. Fortunately, the needed resign is probably about to happen. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear DGG: I have seen a few of these redirects around, but never one to a talk page. None of the articles I created have one at all. If you don't mind, I am going to start a discussion on the project talk page to get this clear in my own head. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate article page for 24 Indian version

There's already a page for 24 Indian Version TV series: 24_(Indian_TV_series)

The page 24 - Indian version (2013) is unnecessary and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathak.ab (talk • contribs) 08:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Pathak.ab: Thank you for pointing this out. I will fix this up. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the IEG Committee

Hi Anne, Thanks very much for your interest in joining IEG Com - we'd love to have you as a member! I left some info about setup for the committee in a longer message on your meta talk page, hope you check that page too. Cheers! Siko (WMF) (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at WT:AFC.
Message added 03:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

theonesean 03:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Lao Human Rights Council

Hi Anne,

We submitted a stub contribution for the organization "Lao Human Rights Council" which you reviewed and rejected. You mentioned that the article was not and encyclopedic article. How can we fix it to make it encylopedic ? There are literally dozens of independent news articles referencing the organization, including the New York Times (Associated Press, Fresno Bee,Star Tribune, Agence France Press, etc.) . I was submitting a stub, so I did not have time to reference these at the time. What should I do to resubmit and make the article encyclopedic ? I would be grateful if you could advise, so we do not make this mistake again and waste our time and effort with submissions that do not meet wikipedia standards. If possible, we would like to resubmit. Thanks for your help.

Publico2020 (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Publico2020 : Don't worry! The page that I declined was just the one on which you had posted a question. You submitted it, so I had to decline it to get it out of the review list because it wasn't an article. I moved the text to your talk page, so it was just an empty page. Your submission is still up for review at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Lao Human Rights Council. You can delete the large blue box from your talk page if you want to. Sorry to have confused you. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Anne,

Thanks. But, I think that I messed up again. Before getting your good message, I posted a question again on the Lao Human Rights Council page again to you. I guess I am a little confused about how things work with the talk pages, etc., and am still learning.

Maybe I messed the page up again that you mentioned because I posted a question again, etc.

I also added more newspaper reference sources to the submission stub, which I do not know if they went through or not for the review list article "Lao Human Rights Council"

Thanks a lot for taking the time to reply and explain things to me, I am learning (slowly) the process. What you explained to me is helpful. Is it possible for you to double check what you mentioned above in your previous reply. Because I think I made mistake in posting a question to the empty page that you mentioned (once again--my mistake). I apologize. I do not know how to correct this. Publico2020 (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Declined article

Dear Anne, I recently submitted an article on Prof. Lim Keuky, the founder of the Cambodian Diabetes Association. It was declined on the basis of transgression of the copyright laws. I am new to Wikipedia. I am the Deputy Director of CDA Siem Reap Branch and created and wrote the website from which I have taken most of the content of the article I submitted. Is it possible to reconsider the article given this information? I appreciate your time. Thank you.CDA Siem Reap (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Siem: Wikipedia has a policy that all of its editors must edit as individuals and not as representatives of an organization. The material on the CDA web site is considered to be the intellectual property of the organization. You could have a vote of your board of directors to donate the text to Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials); however, because Wikipedia licenses all of its text freely, it would then be able to be used, changed and republished by anyone in the world, and they may not want that. Remember that once the text is in the encyclopedia, others will change and add to it. In any case, the text is not suitable for the encyclopedia, and should be rewritten in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. For example, feelings, devotions and aspirations should not be included. Looking at your submission, I notice that it was mostly about Professor Keuky. You should probably title the article about him rather than the CDA, or write a separate article about each.

Your article also had a separate problem: Every Wikpedia article has to have references to reliable sources such as news reports, magazine articles or books that are written about the subject by independent writers. If you decide to keep working on your submission, be sure to add these.

You can continue to work on the same submission by editing it and removing the line that says "afc cleared", and then just add text. Or, if you decide to use a different article name you can start a new submission. Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Anne I regret the extra work I caused by accidentally submitting an article (Ticks of domestic animals) that I had already submitted, and had been accepted in December 2011. (This article now seems well regarded by its readers.) However, it was still in my Sandbox when I submitted two new and related articles on September 9, 2013, titled Mites of domestic animals, and Insects of domestic animals. As a fairly new contributor to Wikipedia, I have found all procedures well enough explained, except for a clear procedure of how to finally submit an article, so my actions yesterday were a bit uncertain. Thank you for all your hard work as an editor. Wadudu (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Article declined: Ticks of domestic animals

Dear Anne Repeated message with Subject inserted!

I regret the extra work I caused by accidentally submitting an article (Ticks of domestic animals) that I had already submitted, and had been accepted in December 2011. (This article now seems well regarded by its readers.) However, it was still in my Sandbox when I submitted two new and related articles on September 9, 2013, titled Mites of domestic animals, and Insects of domestic animals. As a fairly new contributor to Wikipedia, I have found all procedures well enough explained, except for a clear procedure of how to finally submit an article, so my actions yesterday were a bit uncertain. Thank you for all your hard work as an editor. Wadudu (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Wadudu. No problem, this type of thing happens all the time. Yesterday I found three copies of one article! If you create an article in your sandbox, or on a user page (for example, User:Alan R Walker/Article name), there are two ways that you can put it into the encyclopedia. (1) If you are sure that it has good, reliable references, isn't a copyright violation, is factual and not an advertisement, then you can move it yourself to article space (using the move command under the little black triangle at the top if the page). (2) If you want it to go through a review first, just to be sure, you can submit it to "Articles for creation" by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article and wait for a reviewer. I do some of each; if I have a conflict of interest, or if its a marginal topic, I use Afc. If I know it's okay, I just move it to article space under the title I want. Good luck —Anne Delong (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

ACT Holding

Hi Anne Delong,

Good day!

I would like your help on how to get approval?

This person is a known person - http://act-holdings.com.sg/about-us/our-founder/ and the company as well here in Singapore.

What would be the arrangement? Do you like to communicate with the owner of the company?

My email is rybaxs@yahoo.com

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rybaxs (talk • contribs) 02:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Rybaxs: Wikipedia is not an advertising web site. It only has articles about companies, people, etc., that are so well known that they have been written about in news reports, magazine articles or books. Also, if an article is written about this person, it would have to be written in a neutral, factual way, not as a tribute. References to the news reports and other articles written by journalists or authors not connected with him or his company must be included. Once it is written, the text can be changed by other editors if they find reports to back up their information. Also, you will have to write the article in your own words, not using the text that is published on the web site above. If, after you have found the references, you want to make the article, you should try this link: Wikipedia:Your first article

Bradwardine and District

Hello Anne Re: Bradwardine and District entry submission. Yes, the information I submitted was adapted from a book published by the Bradwardine History Committee in 2003. They listed an extensive timeline; I took out only the information applying directly to Bradwardine and District (my home town and district). This is a first time (probably the only time :-) submission to Wiki for me. Ghost towns have a history. I figured people ought to know Bradwardine was once a lively, vibrant, thriving town and district.

Dilys Collier Tyndalstone (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Red Deer AB

Animal Care College

DEar Anne,

Thank you for your message

It is my intention to complete this entry - when I can find time to negotiate all the protocols.

Please leave it for editing for the moment it you do not mind. I also have another one proposed for Our Dogs - the same problems apply

Best wishes86.181.68.197 (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

David

Hello Anne, I'm new and beginner. But I learned this morning how can I write "title"... I think that it's better now. Thanks--77.251.14.186 (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Anne, I'm beginner here. But I learned this morning how can I write the "title". Thanks--Tarasyani (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback at VPT

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

--Redrose64 (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Article declined

Could you advise why the article was declined please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukpayroll (talk • contribs) 16:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ukpayroll. I left a note at the top of the article about why it was declined, but perhaps you didn't see it. All Wikipedia articles about companies have to have references to sources not connected to the company, such as news articles (not ads or press releases), magazine articles, books, product reviews, etc. Your article doesn't have any. If the company has never been written about by journalists or other authors, then it's too soon for a Wikipedia article. If it has, just add references to these (see the essay Help:Referencing for beginners) to the article and then click on the "Resubmit" button. Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hoot Hester.

By all means you have my permission to delete anything you want. I am not much of a writer and that article needs a lot of help. I went to the same High School as he did and have always admired his talent. Anyway have fun and do not wait for my approval for any sort of rewrite. I am extremely easy to get along with but I do not own a computer. I accept your conditions and am very happy that you have shown interest. Michaelgossett (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I see that you have already started making changes to the article. Thanks for the help. You are making it a much better article than it was. God bless you and yours. Michaelgossett (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Michael, I have submitted the article. There's a big backlog, so there will likely be a wait before it is accepted. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Re-Submission of New Article - Vimal Shah

Hi,

I have added the citations as well as I could now. But I will later work on it more thoroughly as I get a hang of how to use Wikipedia more adroitly. Meanwhile how do I resubmit it?

It is still in the talk page...

Regards

Anthony — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdass (talk • contribs) 05:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarification re: my Kat Rocket wiki rejection notice

Hi Anne, So first time I'm trying to add to wiki and received your comment that my Kat Rocket item was a copyright violation. The link you provided as the source CBC is a site I started and the wording is mine. I managed Kat Rocket and co-owned our record label "Hoodwink Records Inc." from 1995. In fact most of the Kat Rocket online content is mine and created to promote the band with full support from Darren Donaghey and Stella Panacci of Kat Rocket and my business partners. See this link as example of other wording i created and used in my wiki post - please note my name and creation date: http://www.canadianmusicwiki.com/%28S%28ghmicsrgu23amgrdsotghz55%29%29/Kat-Rocket.ashx. Also our art licensing company now owns all the Kat Rocket masters as part of the Hoodwink Records Inc. shareholders dissolution agreement we signed a few years back.

I'd really love to include the Kat Rocket story on wiki but am also happy to withdraw it if wiki doesn't feel it meets copyright standards.

Thanks for your help and I look forward to your reply.

My best Mariopanacci (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC).

Dear Mariopanacci: Unfortunately, once you have published text elsewhere, there are copyright issues, because all of Wikipedia's text is freely licensed for anyone to use, change or even sell. There is a complicated process by which copyright text can be donated to Wikipedia, but usually for material written to promote something it is not worth the effort because the text would be declined anyway as being "promotional". I have read over your text, and it's just full of what Wikipedians call "puffery" and chatty gossip, includes a large unattributed quote, and has no outside sources such as news reports, reviews, or magazine article citations to support the information. If you would like to include an article about this band in Wikipedia, you will have to pretend that you are an uninvolved author, just writing up a neutral, factual report, supporting the facts with published sources, and leaving out all opinions and praise. The exception to the praise part is if it can be written as a fact, such as "Reviewer XXX, of YYY magazine, found the band to have excellent harmonies and lyrics". I know that this is more work than just copying already written text, but it's what every Wikipedia article editor has to do. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anne, Wow I had no idea what wikipedia was all about and I've been a regular reader for many years. I totally accept your positions and will now attempt a total rewrite. The web is full of Kat Rocket published sources with reviewer and magazine tags so I should be able to contribute them rather than my existing text. Thanks so much for pointing out all my errors. Do I win the prize for the worst, most self serving, vain attempt at "puffery" ever to attempt inclusion into wikipedia (: ). My very best 70.31.156.243 (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No, Mario, not the worst by a long shot. Last month there was a an article about a model that included naked photos, and at least you didn't say that you'd been endorsed by God as has been the case several times (really hard to refute). Make sure that the published material you cite was not written by the band or its friends ("press releases"), but by real reviewers and journalists. Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Review :'Perumpillichira'

Hi Anne I recently submitted an article about the village I grew up named 'Perumpillichira'. It was rejected in the initial review due to lack of references. Unfortunately, I'm not able to find enough reference material as this village is so small and not at all famous. I wrote this tiny article based on my own experience living there for 20 years. Please let me know how can I help you to make the review effective

— Preceding unsigned comment added by John.valen (talk • contribs) 20:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC) 

Dear Anish: Luckily, Wikipedia doesn't require many references for a small article about a village. Mainly, we require proof that it is a village recognized by the government. So, if it has a post office designation, or a has census report, is marked on a published map, is on the local municipality's list of villages, anything like that will suffice. How about *http://yellowpages.sulekha.com/idukki_perumpillichira_area_pin-code.htm

• http://www.archive.org/stream/censusindia04indi/censusindia04indi_djvu.txt
• http://www.empoweringindia.org/new/blogareas.aspx?st=S11&ac=90
• http://www.veethi.com/places/kerala-idukki-place_directory-13-49.htm

—Anne Delong (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Anne I looked at the links you provided and they are all accurate.So, I added them under reference. Please let me know if this is sufficient — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.valen (talk • contribs) 22:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear John.valen: The article still needs work, and should have sources about some of the facts, but you have added enough to show that it is a notable topic, so I have passed it. I removed some adjectives that would be considered opinion rather than fact. I hope that you will continue to improve it, and maybe make articles about other topics that interest you. Good luck, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildas (~). —Anne Delong (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Harold Bradley Sr.

Anne, I took the information from the previous article and re-wrote it, adding additional sourced material that I had. Feel free to combine their histories...thanks! Rozehawk (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Our Dogs Weekly Newspaper

Hi Anne, Just a 'heads up' as I've only just noticed you left a message at User talk:DavidCavill re the above asking if he intended to move it over to main space. I've been watching the draft as I suspect the 'history' section looks to have been substantially copied from here; and the intro, profile and politics sections seem to be from this article with just company details altered and no attribution given. COI (and possibly promotion?) may also come into the equation (David Cavill owns Our Dogs - see third line from the bottom of the draft; he also owns Animal Care College, which incidentally it looks like the editor had created an article for previously but was deleted). SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sagaciousphil. I have been going through old draft articles that have never been submitted for review. I've been asking editors if they intended to submit their articles for review; sometimes they think they have already done so. If he had submitted, at that point all of the article's flaws would have come out. However, since you have found a serious copyright violation, there's no need to wait for the draft to be submitted. I'll see what I can do about it. Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for helping me reach the first step in my first submission AfC. 112SU Stornoway

112SU Stornoway (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:La Luz del Mundo

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:La Luz del Mundo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Talkback 2

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

A barnstar for you!

		The Articles for Creation barnstar
		Thanks for explaining the inline citation proceedures to me. Zach Vega (talk to me) 13:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

from John Rester Zodrow

Hi, Anne,

whoops, looks like I screwed up. I'd be pleased if you re-did my article in the correct format. Also, if you have any suggestions with the overall references, categories and URLs I've added, I'd appreciate it greatly. Thanks, again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnzodrow (talk • contribs) 15:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, John, I have fixed things up the best I could. Here are my suggestions about your references:

^ Quote from Gina MacDonald, Contributor, in Biographical Dictionary Of Contemporary Catholic Writing, ISBN 0-313-24585-1, p. 307

If you can add the publisher of this dictionary, that would be good.

^ SEE ISBN NUMBERS, Amazon Kindle Book Store, Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble Nook Store, Barnesandnoble.com ^ Amazon, Amazon Kindle, Barnes & Noble, Nook store]

These are not useful. Wikipedia is not interested in who is selling the book, and you are asking the readers to go look it up themselves. What's needed instead are book reviews written by independent authors, not those interested in selling the books. If you can't find such a review, or the book mentioned in a magazine article, for example, and the sales notice is all there is, make a proper reference beside the appropriate book with the exact URL, such as (inside the ref tags) Book Name

^ IBDB,(International Broadway Data Base), IBDB.com, Dramatic Publishing Catalog, 2012, p. 181

Separate these into two different references. Add the exact URL of the page that has the information in the database, not just the general URL. For the second one, you need the title of the item in the catalog and the name of the publisher of the catalog.

^ IMDB, (International Movie Data Base) IMDB.com, Leonard Maltin's TV Movies, p. 579, p. 684, Writers Guild Of America Awards, 1976, WGAW.org

Separate these into three references. Again, you need the exact page in the IMBD. Leaonard Maltin's book is good, but give the title of the entry and his publisher's name and the year, since there are multiple editions of this book. You need the exact URL at WGAW.org that shows the award that was won.

^ IMDB, IMDB.com

Too general. See above.

^ Biographical Dictionary Of Contemporary Catholic American Writing, Edited by Daniel J. Tynan, Greenwood Pres, ISBN 0-313-24585-1, pp.307-309

Add the title of the dictionary entry.

^ See Ya Publishing

Do they have a web page? If not, maybe a listing in a directory of publishers? Otherwise you should remove this.

Remember, when the reviewers are deciding on the notability of the author (you, I guess), they only consider what has been written by other authors and journalists. The IMBD and IBDB are user-contributed; the publishers and sales sites don't have a neutral point of view. It would be helpful if you could find some reviews to add as references.

I hope this helps. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

from John Rester Zodrow

Thank you, Anne for all your input. I'm on it.

It's the clearest best advice I've ever had. Many thanks again. Johnzodrow (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear Anne

Thank you for your inputs on an article for creation for Ang Jolie Mei. Special thanks for directing me to the Singapore Wiki Project page. I am new to Wiki and was unaware of this. Thanks for the help again

Regards Petson Peter AKA Writer WrenchWriterwrench (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding the Order that the bot is intending to nominate

Would a userspace list of the "What submission/who" ordered by how the bot is going to nominate be useful? I could see a userspace task where the bot updates the list to move a indicator to show what the last submission that was nominated was and add to the list each time a new set of AfC pages became eligible for G13 (and the bot served notice on them). Would that be useful for the AfC rescue crew? Hasteur (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Hasteur: As I understand it, the bot takes a certain month, say November 2011, and it nominates the G13 eligible submissions in alphabetical order. A simple way to arrange this would be to make a page with sections, list them in order, and let people check them off. For example:

2011 November

A-C - Done. Anne

D-F - Anne is working on this

G-I - Done. John Doe.

J-L -

2011 December

A-C - Hasteur is doing this one

D-F - Sue is working on this

G-I - Done. Fred.

This would not need any software intervention. After a while we should be well ahead of the bot. The user box could be in the top corner. In fact, I am going to set up such a page in my user space today and start using it, and see if anyone else is interested.

If it's not too much work, an announcement to put on the page that says "The G13 bot has reached this date, and has nominated submissions up to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation.submission name" (so that we can see what letter of the alphabet it is working on) would be helpful. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Currently it's running through months by date. Shortly that's going to change (based of my changing the "nudge driver") to a by-date-alphabetical Once the bot has traversed the barrier it'll go by days alphabetically. By publishing the list, editors who are interested in pre-checking can run ahead of the bot, and can work the list in the same order that the bot would. The idea would be to provide both the page name, and which editor created it so that if the page title link doesn't work (the page title had a unicode character in it) you can go over to the user talk page and grab the title. Hasteur (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is not in running ahead of the bot. We can already to that by using the Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions. The optimum would not to be working anywhere near where the bot is working. The problem is in knowing which ones have already been checked by someone else. Does your solution address that issue, because to me that is the only problem right now. Are you saying that the submissions are not being nominated in the same order that they are listed in the Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions? That's confusing. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying that starting in a bit, the Sorting that's on the G13 eligible AfC submissions is not going to be as accurate due to the fact that the Bot runs the nominations by Day now (instead of the original by month) whereas the G13 AfC submissions are sorted only to Month level. For example, Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/The Backwater will be processed before Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AJ Allen Investments / Equity Partners of Texas (assuming that the last edit date for both was the same date) because Backwater was initially submitted on the 1st of September whereas the AJ Allen was submitted initially on the 2nd of September. The idea is to present as accurate of list to the rescue crew (Deliberately not using rescue squad as there's charged emotions with respect to those 2 words used toghether) with as accurate of a list as possible. Hasteur (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Hasteur: Okay, I'm not sure why the order of nomination is being changed, but why not change the order of the sort of the category to match? Having two different sorts laying around of the same list, one of which is misleading, doesn't seem to make sense. However, I don't really care about all that. I am interested in trying not to waste my time by looking over ones that have already been looked at. I presume since you didn't say anything about it that this is an unrelated problem, the answer is no. SI am unaware of anything particular about the words "rescue" and "squad", but I will happily change my language if it is mysteriously charging people with emotion. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The bot has to advance by days now because we're now running into the end of the 6 month period. The bot also had to run in the by day categories because a process that runs for 24 hours to nominate a single month category is too long. Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron is the genesis of the emotion regarding Rescue and Squadron. Some people percieve it as a way to canvass editors to straight oppose a deletion nomination. Hasteur (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I changed my page title. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

From John Rester Zodrow

Hi, Anne,

I followed your instructions closely. So feel I've added specific sources, full URLs and reviews you wanted. The article is up. Would you be so kind as to take a quick look at it? Isn't the reference reflist supposed to automatically generate?

Thanks.

Johnzodrow (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Johnzodrow: I am not sure what you mean about the references. They appear to be there. Were you having trouble making them show up? If so, the problem has been fixed.

When looking at the references, the number of IMDB references are overwhelming the others. Isn't there one page at IMDB that summarizes everything connected with a certain person? I don't usually see individual references for each item. Remember that IMDB is not considered to be a reliable source, since people input their own information. You can still link the one reference to a number of spots in the article, Like this:<ref name=John's IMDb page>[http://URLHERE TITLE]</ref> for the first one, and then <ref name=John's IMDb. page /> after that.

I see that you have found a couple of book reviews.

Reading over the text of your article, I see that there is a lot of material that isn't written in your own words. Quotations should only be a small part of an article, not the main part. Here's something to read: WP:QUOTEFARM

Some articles to look at for examples:

• Harriette Simpson Arnow
• Mary Raymond Shipman Andrews
• Diane Asitimbay
• M.J. Alexander

I will be leaving you now to another reviewer, because although I am fairly good with references, I am not an expert in either writing or Catholicism. Good luck. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Bumi Serpong Damai was accepted

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

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

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

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Zach Vega (talk to me) 12:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

AfC

See my talk p. for my response DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

from John Rester Zodrow

Dear Anne,

thank you again for the insight and help. I'm on it. Can I ask who is the new reviewer you are recommending?

very best to you,

John

Johnzodrow (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear John: I really don't know the strengths of the various reviewers. If your article is submitted and is in the queue, someone will pick it out to review. However, there are a couple of things that you can do in the meantime: (1) You could leave a message at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, asking if there's anything that should be fixed up before the review. You could also ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism and maybe find someone who has worked on similar articles and would be willing to help. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Citing CVs with backup URLs

Glad to get your comment "Add citation" to my query to the Help Desk a few days ago. An article (David G. Benner), now newly in mainspace after Roger(Dodger67) moved it, needed more references in two of the four paragraphs under Careers. I've added a couple today and could put in more but would love to know the sensible WP approach for citing CVs. It's pretty clear in admins' and editors' postings and other guidelines that pseudo-promo sources like Facebook, LInkedIn and blogs aren't reliable sources. Yup, can see that. Now, an APA stylebook guideline, one of the few, says to handle things like this: to write that the text's info comes from a CV (of a certain date if listed), then record where the info is accessible online. I've done it that way for one of the newest reference notes. While researching the article, I was finding short snibs of career info mentioned in solid sources, and those could be compiled and referenced (lumpy solution), but the plainest and most orderly outline of Benner's worklife is on his own website. I like the APA solution (Chicago Manual of Style wasn't useful) but still feel antsy about the situation for future editing. What think? JaneFaber (talk) 06:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear JaneFaber: There is nothing to prevent you from citing a person's own web site, but this type of citation is extremely weak, and should be accompanied by other, more independent sources. A biography written by the person himself tells what he would like the world to know about him, whereas an encyclopedia is a synopsis of what independent authors and journalists have written about him. Making a point of disclosing that the information is from a CV is good, but it is a weaselly way of not finding proper verification. You see this in news articles when the reporters don't want to bother to check their facts, so instead of writing "John Smith was innnocent of the crime", they write "According to his mother, John Smith was innocent of the crime" (perfectly true). The style guides for professional organizations are intended to be used to allow the reader to judge the level of expertise of a person cited as corroboration of someone else's work in an essay or a paper published in a journal. A person shouldn't be used to verify information about himself.

Let me give you an imaginary example: Mr. X is the CEO of an oil company. It's important for the stockholders' confidence in the company that he appear capable and reliable. He lists on the company web site what he sees as his most positive accomplishments, a glowing report of education completed, positions held, committees worked on, involvement in charitable works, etc. He says nothing about the time he spent in alcohol rehab, the fact that two of his previous companies went bankrupt, his arrest years before for tax evasion, or the fact that he led the company in an efficiency drive, cutting back on pipeline inspections, leading to an oil spill and protests by angry fishermen. Yet all of these things, if written about in the media, would end up in his Wikipedia article (if he existed).

Anyway, I guess my point is to keep looking for independent corroboration, and if you do use the CV as a source, be prepared for other editors to remove it or replace it with an independent one, and to add and change the information in the article to better match the independent source if it differs from the CV Sorry; I know that this is likely not what you wanted to hear. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Anne Delong. Fair enough, and thanks for a full answer. I'll pare back the CV citation added yesterday as a stop-gap for the two career paragraphs and will gradually put in specifics for independent corroboration. (At what point can the "no reliable sources" panel be removed?) Other editors will weigh in, over time, and on we go. Good process. Honourable. JaneFaber (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You were mentioned in a new issue on GitHub for AFCH

Hey Anne, just thought I'd let you know about https://github.com/WPAFC/afch/issues/184 to see if you support such a thing or if you think it should be an off by default option. Thanks! Technical 13 (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing my attention to this. I think you should bring this up at the Afc talk page instead of at an off-Wiki discussion. Others besides me may have an opinion. For myself, I think that it is a minor issue, and not worth putting any work into. Most of the rescued G13s need some work before being submitted. In the odd case where one may be totally ready and was declined for a spurious reason, or maybe had a defective submit template, a decision has to be made as to under whose name to submit the article, and this requires checking the history. I would think that if the submitter has not edited for many months since the article was last submitted, the reviewer could "adopt" the article and just submit it themselves by clicking in Afc the template. If the submitter is still active, then the reviewer should really contact them before submitting. However, if you do go ahead with it, it would just be one more item in a row of options, so it's not really in the way and I see no reason to make it optional. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Holy Incense

Anne, hi! My article on the Holy Incense was rejected on grounds that it sounded more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. I do not deny that it has an essay-like style, but this is larger due to my past writing experiences on other venues. In short, I am asking your advice on how to change the style and make the current article acceptable to the set-requirements of Wikipedia. Can you please suggest areas in which I can change the style and make it acceptable? Here is my article: User:Davidbena/draft article on Holy Incense . Thank you in advance. Davidbena (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear David: I have read the first part of your article, although not all of the detailed bits about the spices, and I have some suggestions:

• Remember that many Wikipedia readers are not Jewish, so you need to give more factual context. For example, when did all of this happen? "In the time of the Temple" is probably a certain estimated time period.

• Most Wikipedia readers are not University graduates, so try to avoid words like "treat", "exegesis" and "esoteric". You are talking about spices - this is not a highly abstract topic. Here's an example: You have written:

"One of the general rules used in biblical exegesis and which was applied to the verse in Exodus 30:34 is this one: "Whenever a generalization is followed by a specified detail, which again is followed by a generalization, one does not infer from its generalization any lesson other than that what is true of the specified detail." The generalization, in this case, is in the first use of the word "SPICES," followed by specified details of "rosin" (i.e. any aromatic gum resin that exudes from trees) and the "operculum" (the so-called "fingernail" spice) and "galbanum" (Ferulago galbanifera, or what is sometimes classified as Ferula galbaniflua). These aforesaid specified details are once again followed by a generalization, "SPICES." This would mean that the "spices" in question can only be those which have similar qualities to those named in the specified details; such as which are true of gum resins (e.g. Mastic, or terebinth gum resin, myrrh, balsam, etc.), and such as which is true of the so-called "fingernail" spice, etc."

I would replace all that with something such as:

"The Book of Exodus, which explains the ingredients of the incense, mentions various aromatic resins, such as ____, as well as ___ and ___, which would be called 'spices' today.

• Most of your sources were written long ago, and, as you have pointed out, do not necessarily agree, so it's a good idea to explain where information was found right in the text if it may not be clear. For example (and this is probably messed up because all I know about this topic I learned from "Uncle Arthur's Old Testament Bedtime Stories" or some such.) "According to ____(insert really old document name here), when the Jewish people were wandering in the wilderness after leaving Egypt, on the way to the Land of Canaan, they worshiped their God in a Tent of Convocation. One of the duties of their first priest, Aaron, and later his descendants, (continue description you have, which is clear).

• Text that refers to Jewish belief should be clearly delineated from scholarship (I know, that's tricky), by using words such as "The Jewish people believe", or "According to Jewish beliefs". Most of this article would be the scholarship part, since it's mostly about spices. For example, you say "Some suggest" . Some what? The you mention Maimonides, but maybe your should add ", a Torah scholar writing in the Middle ages", because most people won't know who he is. And who are the Sages?

• Now, the part that makes it an essay: An encyclopedia article doesn't give any opinions at all, although it may report the opinions of others (hopefully experts). So you can say "Professor Amar argues", but the word "effectively" is your own opinion. All the material where you are weighing back and forth the merits or likelihood of accuracy of information in various texts will have to go. If most scholars believe one thing, just say that and give a couple of references; if opinions are split, say that and give an example from each side. If this means a shorter and simpler article, that's good. You should probably save the article before you start to pare it, because the text that you have now may be suitable later for inclusion in a more scholarly publication.

Now keep in mind that I am only one of 120,000 people who have edited Wikipedia in the past month, and my opinion is only an opinion. Feel free to disregard any section which doesn't make sense to you. Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

A couple of style tips from a talk page stalker (one of Anne's many fans): Never refer to the article in the article; constructions such as "A brief description of....is treated in this article" are not acceptable. Rather say "Holy incense is...<then give the definition/description>." Never address, refer to, or instruct the reader - write strictly in the third person unless you are directly quoting a source. Keep in mind that your average reader will have only a high-school level education in history, social science, botany, etc so try to tone down the sophicticated jargon - the WP:NOTJOURNAL page has guidance on this. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Anne and Roger. I will do all that you say!Davidbena (talk) 05:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Raging Bull

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Raging Bull. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bluegrass Alliance

Hey Anne please do feel free to join me and or expedite the process as you did with the Hoot Hester article. I know that Hoot Hester was a friend of one of Lonnie Peerce's but I don't know how long the band stayed in Louisville after I left there in December of 1969. I also don't know too much about what happened after Peerce retired. Anyway feel free to join in on any article I am either creating or editing. The Jim Kweskin article needs help and I am thinking of starting an Article on Subway Elvis. He was an Elvis impersonator long before Elvis died. He if from Toronto. Michaelgossett (talk) 02:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

G13 rescue

Hi Anne. I have moved the G13 rescue backlog to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/G13 rescue and done all the Os for December 2011. If I can find coverage in one reliable source for the article's subject quickly, I have postponed it as salvageable (and for a few left links to the source in question). Please advise if I should use the same procedure for AfDs and find as many sources as possible. Where a submission is duplicated in mainspace, I have redirected the submission to there.

Once I know what the procedure is, I can document it and we can get everyone to tackle the backlog. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ritchie333. I will skip the O's. The December 2011's are disappearing before I can check them, because the bot is no longer doing them by the alphabet, but by date, so my procedure will only work if we can stay a month ahead. About the duplicates: These will either have to be dealt with by history merge if appropriate or content from them moved to the the other article if there's enough to be worth the effort, or just let go if they really are duplicates. Because there's a rush, your temporary solution should give some time to do that later. I've been checking any I thought worth saving for copyvios before postponing them. I haven't been as thorough as you at checking for new sources; if there aren't any at all, or if they are all primary sources such as twitter or a band's web site I've been letting them go unless they fall under one of those inherently notable categories, such as a town or a professor. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

What I've been doing is starting of at , doing all the Os (or whatever) on that page, then clicking on "02", repeating, then "03", and so on. Anyway, the page has project visibility so we should see a consensus on how to move forward. I'm not surprised mainspace duplicates are appearing, since if a submission sent nearly two years ago was on a genuinely notable subject, it's no surprise that another editor has discovered so and created the article. I wouldn't worry about doing a histmerge automatically as they can be a ball-ache - the redirect preserves the submission's history and hence it's copyright. Perhaps if a submission was almost at acceptance stage while its mainspace equivalent was a borderline AfDable stub you might want to histmerge, but I don't feel that's likely to happen. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

If it's cut-and-paste, and if it's just a few diffs by the same editor, the copyright info is preserved anyway in the later text, so I don't bother with those; I just let them go. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I have started some info on the talk page, but you may want to add to it, since my opinion is just my opinion. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

New submission

Hi Anee! I edited Muhammad Sharif (cosmologist). Please check it and include it as an article in Wikipedia. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeeshan313b (talk • contribs) 16:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Zeeshan313b. I will look at your submission, but before I do you should remove the personal comments at the top. They belong instead on your personal user page, which would be at User talk:Zeeshan313b. Also, you won't have to worry about trying to organize people interested in Relativity; they are already organized at:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Relativity

...and you can add your name there and start participating in discussions on the talk page. I'm sure you'll meet some kindred spirits there. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Anee! I removed the personal comments from the top. Thanks fopr your help. Muhammad Sharif (Cosmologist) is my beloved teacher. That's why i am excited and want to see him in Wikipedia. So please make Muhammad Sharif (cosmologist) as an article in Wikipedia. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeeshan313b (talk • contribs) 17:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Anne! I made the changes as you said. I use neutral words and remove the External links from the main body. The revised version of the proposed article is https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Muhammad_Sharif_%28cosmologist%29&action=submit

So please make Muhammad Sharif (cosmologist) as an article in Wikipedia. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeeshan313b (talk • contribs) 10:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Zeeshan313b: I looked at the article again, and it appears to be exactly the same as it was. In fact, the article history shows that it has not been edited since I left my message. Perhaps you forgot to click on the "Save page" button. Please try again! —Anne Delong (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Anne! I am so sorry as I may not be able to save the page. Thanks for your patience. Now I made changes accordingly again. I hope this will not disappoint you. link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Muhammad_Sharif_%28cosmologist%29

So please make Muhammad Sharif (cosmologist) as an article in Wikipedia. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeeshan313b (talk • contribs) 15:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Zeeshan313b: The article is much better. It needed more inline citations; I have added a few. You can add more at any time, even after the article is in the encyclopedia. It is difficult to look in a neutral fashion on someone that you admire. If you agree, I will make some changes to make it even more neutral, and fix a few small grammatical problems. Then it will be ready, and I will move it into the encyclopedia. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Anne! I am agree, you can make some changes to make it even more neutral, and can fix grammatical problems too. Make it ready to move for the encyclopedia. Thanks a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeeshan313b (talk • contribs) 19:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI thread

Hi Anne. FYI - You posted a G12 speedy deletion notice on ClopperAlmon's talk page and he/she then posted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Article_on_Alfred_H._Bartles. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Jreferee for the heads-up. I wrote the person a note. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Anne, Thank you for taking the time to write to me at some length about the article I submitted on Alfred H. Bartles. As far as I can see from the material you sent, I was never given the opportunity to DELETE the submission which you had decided not to use. Thus, when it later appeared elsewhere, you deleted it for copyright reasons. I regard this mixup as a result of the difficulty and complexity of communicating with Wikipedia. Please understand that I long WANTED IT DELETED from Wikipedia and could find no way to do so.

When I got your message, I wanted to reply but could find no way to do so. After a lot of poking around on Wikipedia, I found this channel. At the top, it says "Put new text under old" but it does not say how to do so. It could simply add "by clicking the word [Edit] after the title."

Probably there is a better way to reply, but I failed to find it. Just another instance of how difficult it is to communicate with Wikipedia.

I see that someone has put a brief notice on Bartles on Wikipedia. Perhaps I can edit it to provide links and more information.

ClopperAlmon (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, ClopperAlmon. I agree that Wikipedia can be complicated. There are actually over 30,000,000 pages, (4,300,000 articles), and almost all of them have been created by unpaid volunteers, who discuss additions and changes in groups and then do their best to improve the encyclopedia. I am still learning new things about it every day. We are limited by the "Wiki" software, which works differently from a word processor. Luckily, there are a number of help forums, where you will find friendly editors willing to answer your questions. I see that there are a number of links to these on your talk page. I'm sorry that you were not able to figure out how to request deletion of your article, but please don't feel that you have to always find information by yourself; just ask! I hope that if you continue to edit Wikipedia you will have a better experience. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

(←) Hello, Anne Delong! I followed this from ANI. Since you deal with new users frequently, and they might need to contact you on your talk page, can I ask you you start archiving your talk page? You see, it took me 3 tries and about 12 minutes to get your talk page to load (I have lowly dial-up still). Some new users are put off by inconveniences and long talk pages is one. Can I ask you to set up an auto-archive using one of the bots? Thanks, (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) --64.85.216.33 (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Why do you hijack an article out of userspace?

User:The Banner/Laois Intermediate Hurling Championship was not an admission to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation by me! The Banner talk 19:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) With respect to The Banner as soon as the page was submitted using the AfC template here and there is a reasonable chance at acceptance, the page is moved into AfC space. Please look to ShamDela as to why they thought the page was ready for AfC to take over. Please observe that the language you have used so far is pejorative and more disruptive than the perceived slight. Hasteur (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I have never even had the intention to send this article to AfC because I knew that the article was not ready/unsuitable. And suddenly, without anybody even telling me, it is moved out of my userspace. Can you imagine that is am severely not happy? I want that article restored where it was, without the AfC-stuff. The Banner talk 19:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear The Banner: The reason that I moved the article into Afc space and reviewed it was because it had a large yellow "Request for review" template on the top. I was unaware that it was not you who placed it there, and so your surprise is understandable. However, sorry, now that attention has been called to the article, there are some issues. The article was supposed to have been deleted after a deletion discussion because it didn't pass the notability requirements. Instead, it was moved to your user space, I presume at your request so that you could improve it. In fact, the article has not changed since then, and had not been edited for a year and a half when submitted. User pages that look like articles, but aren't, fall foul of WP:FAKEARTICLE. You may not have been aware of this, but now that you are, if there are still no references to show that this topic passes notability requirements you should request its deletion yourself. You can always keep a copy at home on a word processor in case you find good material later. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

To be true, I forgot about this article. That is why I did not work on it. Could you put it back where it belongs, with a noindex on it? The Banner talk 20:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Update on Simply Gluten Free Magazine page

Hi Anne,

I just got your message about my submission for the page Simply Gluten Free Magazine. I have made some changes and have a few more things to sort out and then I will resubmit it again for your review. This is my first time creating pages on wikipedia, so I don't know all the rules just yet but I am learning. Thank you for being kind about the edits, I will do my best to give it a more neutral tone.

I also have another page that is already up (I didn't realize I could make drafts first, so my first page was instantly put up somehow), it is for Carol Kicinski. I received feedback on that one from another user and I changed a few things, added more references, etc. but didn't hear anything else about whether or not I fixed it well enough. Would you be willing to check that page out and tell me what you think? I wouldn't want it to get deleted if I missed a few things.

Thank you for your help.

--M.Renae (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear M.Renae: You can make articles either way. By submitting a draft you get feedback, and make sure that once the article is in place it won't be deleted as inappropriate. However, once you know a few policies about no copyright violations, independent sources, no advertising, etc., you can make the pages directly. If you want feedback about an article that's already in the encyclopedia, you might try leaving a message (and joining) Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink and Wikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitness. (I hope the references you added were to independent sources, such as reviews, news reports, etc., not to press releases or related companies.) Good luck, and I hope that you will continue to contribute to the encyclopedia. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Josh Willis

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Josh Willis. 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, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Ana Mony

Hello,

Thanks for reviewing my article.

I just saw where to review what I need to edit.

Will you be reviewing my edits or will that be someone else please?

Ana Mony — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnaMony (talk • contribs) 05:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear AnaMony: Welcome to Wikipedia! I am not sure that I understand your question. I reviewed the article that you submitted, and reported that it is not suitable to be a Wikipedia article, because it is about your own thoughts and ideas. Wikipedia only has articles about subjects that have been written about in other published sources, such as news reports, magazine articles or books. Any of the reviewers here at Wikipedia will tell you the same. Did you mean that you submitted it for review accidentally, or as a test? If so, I can either delete it or move it to your user page for you. If you submit another article in the future, any one of Wikipedia's experienced editors my choose to review it. If you edit an existing article, be sure to include a reference to a reliable, published source (see WP:Referencing for beginners); then other editors who like to write about that topic may discuss your edit and make further changes to the article. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Benner article references

Hello Anne Delong.... Would appreciate a comment on this, when possible. I've been adding references to the career section of article David G. Benner, working to clear the "unreliability" warning that the section had no references. It has ten now, up from zero (I'd misunderstood WP guidelines and postings on citing CVs). Am still working to cross-reference the CV data with independent third-party print sources and would greatly appreciate a word of direction. You and Roger(Dodger 67) dealt with the article earlier. Is that career section sturdy enough yet, or almost there? Also, if an item of information isn't in print but only online (such as list of faculty appts at Rohr Institute, or WorldCat listings), that still is a "bare URL" that might evaporate. Not sure what to do about those. Hope you can help. JaneFaber (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear JaneFaber: I will answer first about "bare URLs". If a reference is only available on line, you should make a proper reference to it just as if it were a printed source: the name of the person who wrote the article (if available), the title of the article, the URL of the website, the name of the "publisher" (who's website is it?), what date was it written (if available), and, in addition, because website contents change, the date of access. This will help with your worry about disappearing web content, because you are basically attesting that it was there on that date, even if it isn't later. Sometimes old web material can be accessed through the "Wayback Machine".

About WorldCat and other similar listings: these are indexes, not documents, and I don't see why you would use them as a reference. It's the actual book, magazine or newspaper article itself that is listed in the index that is the source of information. Citing WorldCat would be like citing a Google search.

About the tag that you are hoping to have removed: I think that you should leave a message for Dodger67 about that, since he was the one who placed it. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Anne.... Yes, good counsel. This isn't a generally a subject area I research, but I thought it would make a useful article. Have been working on 1590s privateers, so article sources were unfamiliar. Your checklist for referencing non-print sources is practical in any field, and it's clearer for WP purposes than Chicago 15th's section. I'll go to the library again before writing to Dodger67. Thanks for mentioning Wayback Machine. Fair winds. JaneFaber (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

What article is this about? I will take a look at the tagging. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe it's David G. Benner —Anne Delong (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Found it and removed the tag as the bare URL problem no longer exists. However the references still have problems; some references cite multiple sources, please separate them, each source should be footnoted separately; don't hide the URLs in "here" links, make them directly readable in the footnotes; don't "explain" the reference in the footnote, just give the details of the source, you can include a quote if it is really necessary. Quotes are usually only provided if the source is not in English or very difficult to access such as online sources behind a paywall or a book so rare that only one or a few libraries have a copy. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

from John Rester Zodrow re: article ready

Hi, Anne,

have finished readying the article and have submitted it for review. I think it is finally there--many thanks to you.

very best,

76.87.63.166 (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Robot archiving; monthly divisions

Don't remove the code on the top of this talk page. It consists of commands to a robot that will archive it neatly by month. Let it run for a few days until the bot "notices" the commands and performs the work.

Also, don't use the divisions you used for the months. It breaks up certain intricacies used by the system and hides the Table of Content of your talk page which makes it even harder to navigate!

Hope you are enjoying Wikipedia!

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback: Wikipedia Editor Retention / my little Frankenstein

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#Reviewing the Anne Delong phenomena.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 08:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the project organized by Ocaasi that you are referring to? Would like to see your interview as well. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Ahnoneemoos: Here is a link to the last round of proposals. Two of these about new editor experience and free resources are Ocaasi's: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG#ieg-reporting2

Here is another link to the new round of proposals. Ocaasi is an advisor on the one about mentorship. By the way, if you think any of these proposals are worthwhile, feel free to add a supporting comment, since popularity within the community may be a factor in who gets the grants.

The interviews, I believe, were intended to be confidential, with only a general summary of the contents reported. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to add the second link: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG#ieg-join —Anne Delong (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Please join the discussion taking place at User talk:Maryana (WMF)#Motivations behind editing Wikipedia. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Submission denied due to copyright violation: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SliderAsia Trombone Festival

Hi. I am new to wiki and I am not sure which part you mentioned about my article is violating copyright. I'm the founder and executive director of the festival and everything mentioned in the article I submitted is owned by our organization. Please help to state clearly and we shall edit immediately for your approval to submit.--Stanley@Chen (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Stanley@Chen. All Wikipedia editors have to edit as individuals and not as representatives of any organization or company. Also, you may not have noticed the notice near the "save" button which states that any text added to a Wikipedia article becomes freely licensed for anyone to use, change or sell, so you would lose control of your perhaps carefully crafted text. There is a process for "donating" text, but it has to be done through a more formal process, since Wikipedia has no way of knowing for sure who is behind any particular username. Also, it's not usually worth it, because the text is often too promotional for a neutral encyclopedia article (e.g., "flagship", "top professionals"). It's usually quicker and more effective to rewrite the text in a neutral, factual way as though you were not connected with the organization. Some reading for you: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials

So, the answer to your question is that ALL text which is already published somewhere else, whether on a web site or in your organizations literature, should not be pasted into a Wikipedia article. I hope this clarifies the situation. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anne. Thanks for your advice. I have further re-edited the article so could you please help to review and give further comments?--Stanley@Chen (talk) 05:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Stanley@Chen: It looks like in the meantime Huon has deleted your article. He seems to have found more copyright problems and advertising. If you still want to write the article, you can do one of two things: (1) Write a new rather dry article about the founding and development of this group, with no embedded praise, no mention of upcoming events, just facts. or (2) ask Huon to restore your article and promise to change it right away. Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 04:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback from User:Eastmain

Hello, Anne Delong. You have new messages at Eastmain's talk page.
Message added 09:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Help

Could you have a look at the AfC Project talk page, the How to handle an IP attempt to create an article in Talk space thread? SPhilbrick and I have been making a query, and we feel that the answers we're getting are to different questions altogether. Could be we've not been clear... We usually aren't. Thanks if you can. Peridon (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Louis_Hoffmann

Can you tell me specifically what was considered copyrighted material which caused the deletion of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jpecore#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Louis_Hoffmann_.28October_9.29 ? And how can I get my work back? Thanks - Jpecore (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Jpecore. The article is gone now, but as I recall the article was copied from MagicPedia (http://www.geniimagazine.com/magicpedia/Professor_Hoffmann). I read their copyright policy from the link at the bottom of the article. After I marked it for deletion, it was checked by one of Wikipedia's administrators, Alexf, who agreed and deleted it.

The easiest way to get that text back is probably to visit the MagicPedia site and copy it, but please don't put it into Wikipedia. We'd be happy to have a totally different article about Mr. Hoffmann, since he appears to have been a notable magic expert. If there were references that aren't in the MagicPedia article and you don't have a copy of them, or if for some reason you can't get the text from MagicPedia, you could contact Alexf on his talk page and ask to have it emailed to you.

I'm sorry that this didn't work out as you had expected! —Anne Delong (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I expected at least a discussion before something is deleted, especially for just a submission. I really wish you would have informed me as the MagicPedia policy specifically grants Wikipedia permission to use content: http://geniimagazine.com/magicpedia/MagicPedia:Policy#Wikipedia_exception Jpecore (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Jpecore, We do have discussions about most types of problems, but copyright material has to be removed as soon as it is identified, or Wikipedia can be sued. We have an average of 900 or so new articles every day on Wikipedia, and the volunteer reviewers and other editors don't have time to go digging through policy pages of hundreds of web sites. (The wording on the main copyright page, http://geniimagazine.com/magicpedia/Copyright, makes it seem as though the exception is in the other direction, and that they can't copyright material from Wikipedia.) We have to assume that if material is already published, and no licensing information is submitted, it's not legal (which is actually the case here).

It's up to a person using copyright material to properly attribute it (as it says on the page you pointed out), to demonstrate to a publisher (in this case Wikipedia), that he or she has permission to use it. If you had followed MagicPedia's policy and included an attribution, your article wouldn't have been deleted.

Luckily, nothing on Wikipedia is ever really gone; it can all be fished out of the bin and restored. If you leave a message for Alexf, and explain that the text is licensed under Creative Commons, I'm sure that he will restore it. Ask him to add the following to the bottom of the article (copy the source so the links work), so that it won't be deleted again by the next editor to read it:

"This article uses material from the MagicPedia article Louis Hoffmann which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License."

I hope that this doesn't sour you of creating Wikipedia articles. I'm sure that you won't run into this particular problem again, but I can't promise that there won't be other hitches - Wikipedia seems to be endlessly complex. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Radiative equilibrium

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Radiative equilibrium. 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) 00:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for your offer to help with The Ghost of Otis. I travel all week and read e-mails on the weekend. I've been trying to follow Wiki "tips and Techniques' to no avail. Do I need to remove content?

Tdamico789 (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Tdamico789. Well, not so much remove as rewrite. A lot of the article seems to be quotes. You should rewrite the content in your own words, being sure to add citations to specific magazine articles, news reports, reviews, etc. Here's an example of an article of about the same size: Dixie Flyers. See how the references are formatted. Notice how the article emphasizes the band's history, accomplishments and activities. In your article, it's a good to explain what's unique about the band (with a reference), but going on about it is considered promotional rather than encyclopedic. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Alabama heritage

Anne, I am unsure why our page is denied and am unsure what we are supposed to do at this point. Thank you.