User talk:Anne Delong/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

This the archive of messages posted on Anne Delong's talk page, July to September, 2013.

Your submission at Articles for creation

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Audie Info Article Declined

Morning Anne,

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

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

Thanks again,

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

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

Here are some tips to start off with:

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

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

Thank you and questions left on another page for you

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

Hello Peter Baum. I read your message. Probably either your talk page or mine would have been a better place to put it, but since the article has been declined no one else will probably be looking at it for some time. I found this wiki which may be what you are looking for: [[1]]. If it isn't, I suggest you ask at Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia:Reference desk, and likely someone there will know the answer to your question. I hope that you will continue to use your knowledge to improve Wikipedia articles. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Earnings Call Transcript

Hi Anne,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article Wizard

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

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

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

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

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

Why did you delete my page?

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

Kendra Haste

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

Copyright issues - reply

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

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

Jess Michaels

Hi Anne,

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

Thanks in Advance,

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

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

Your submission at Articles for creation

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

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

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

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

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

My respect for you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your submission at Articles for creation

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

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

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

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

theonesean 15:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

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

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

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

Your submission at Articles for creation

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

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

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

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

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

Help editing?

Hi Anne,

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

Thank you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Backlog Drive

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

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

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

Start Snuggle

IRC office hours for wiki-mentors and Snuggle users

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

save the Banjo Newsletter Wikipedia page

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

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

AfC

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

A kitten for you!

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

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

FAC comment

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

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

AfC

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Creation and acceptance of new articles

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

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

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

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

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

Techweek Capitalization

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

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

Talkback

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

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

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

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

Thank you

Dear Anne Delong,

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

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

Mobiveil article

Dear Anne,

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

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

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

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

Thanks again for taking time out to review.

Regards,

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

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

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

Wendy Holcombe

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

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

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

Thanks for your defense of AfC

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

Blue Grass...hmmmmmmm

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

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

Articles_for_creation/How_It_Should_Have_Ended

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

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

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

Dorothy Goosby article

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

Talkback

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

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

Your submission at Articles for creation

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

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

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

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Andrew³²⁷ 14:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

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

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

Dana Beth Ardi

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

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

Automatic Systems

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

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

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

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

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

Your submission at Articles for creation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rotary Guatemala

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

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

Help with editing a locked page

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

Thanks in advance, Emily

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

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

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

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

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

• Be careful to maintain a neutral tone.

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

FYI

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

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

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

Making an AfC submission

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

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

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

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

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

Page declined

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

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

Dear Anne,

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

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

We would like to make more contributions to Wikipedia and it is encouraging to hear from people like you.

Sincerely,

Publico2020 (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Anne we have members of The association looking for articles so hopefully we can find some and re visit

Tassie WombatTassie Wombat (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Algeco Scotsman entry question

Hello Anne,

I submitted an entry on Algeco Scotsman for review. I'm new to Wikipedia, so it took me a while to figure out how to create, edit and submit, but I finally did it. I received a message that it was rejected but when I searched to find out why, I saw a note that said blank submissions are not accepted. The entry wasn't blank, but I fear I may have done something incorrectly when I submitted it that hid the contents. Now I'm unable to find the draft submission anywhere. I'd hate to think I have to start from scratch since it took me so long to input etc. I tried looking in my history but nothing showed up. I hope you can help me!

Thank you, Lisa Lgtrapani (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Lisa: I think I may have bad news for you. I have looked at your contributions (you can see them by clicking on "Contributions" at the top right side of the page, and you will see this), and as far as I can see, you sent only a blank page for review. You can click on the very first version of the article. It's hard to imagine what may have happened. Were you logged into the same account when you typed the article? If so, then somehow you must not have saved your text. Did you work on your article, saving it as you went along from time to time, or did you type the whole thing and just save it at the end? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anne,

I saved as I went along and also viewed previews along the way. So there's no way to look at a history of drafts I was editing? I was able to go back and edit my drafts before I submitted, so I assume it was saved somewhere...

Lisa Lgtrapani (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Lisa: When you click on the Show Preview button, your work is not saved, only when you press the Save button. When you look at the preview, you will see the following at the top of the page:

This is only a preview; your changes have not yet been saved! in red letters, and when you try to leave the page without saving, it will ask you if you are sure that you want to leave. Until you click on the Save button, the text is just in your browser, and doesn't go from your computer to the Wikipedia server.

The submit of the blank page was the very first edit that you made under the name Lgtrapani. I have even checked to see if any edit that you made was deleted, and there were none. So the only hope for the text to still exist is if you had been using another login at the time. I am sorry, but I don't think there is anything to be done about it. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Miss International

Anne Delong, thank you very much that is very clear. I will do just that. In addition, how do I request a new article on the sister pageant which is just as notable. Please advise. I am very new as you can see to wikipedia and it is so much to learn, but I want to learn. So I will go back and make mention of the sister pageant on the Miss International Page, and request a separate article or venture to write it myself. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsilintl2004 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Anne Delong,

Thank you very much for your help. I am very new to Wikipedia as you can see and there is a lot to learn. I am willing to learn though. Your explanation was very clear and so I will do just that. I will also add that there is a sister pageant and the name of the sister pageant. How do I request a separate article be written about the sister pageant as it is just as notable. As a matter of fact, Bob Eubanks, former host of the newly wed game was the host of the pageant for years. I think it should have a separate article. I mentioned that in the notes. Please advise as you have been very helpful. Thank you.Mrsilintl2004 (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you work on the Miss International article, improve it, being sure to add references to back up your changes, and discuss the changes with other editors on the talk page, after a while it will be a really good article. By the time this happens, you should have a good idea of how to make the other article yourself, since it should be similar. Then if you can't figure out how to get the page started, you can ask me or ask at the WP:Teahouse:Teahouse and someone will help you. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Block from editing request

Anne, would it be possible to block this IP address (206.194.127.112) from making edits. This is a business computer and, while I have occasionally used it to correct minor issues in articles (such as misspellings), it should not be being used for article creation or major edits and especially not for vandalism. If you wish to contact me use my talk page divingpetrel 206.194.127.112 (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear divingpetrel : IP addresses often change from time to time, unless your business computer has arranged with its service provider for a fixed IP address. If this is your business, you may know. If the IP is fixed to one computer, blocking it will prevent your computer being used for vandalism unless the person creates a login and password. If it is not fixed, you may just be blocking other random people who are using other computers elsewhere. Please check out the contributions of this IP by clicking HERE. If the constructive edits are all yours, and you are sure that the others are being made by someone using the same computer when you are not there, you can make your request for blocking at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The administrators there will decide whether to block the IP address (I don't have the authority to do it). —Anne Delong (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.Divingpetrel (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

I'm new to reviewing articles for AfC, and I keep coming across articles that you've previously reviewed - I'm inspired by the thoroughness of your reviews and the thoughtfulness of your comments. JSFarman (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, JSFarman, I just keep thinking about how each article has a hopeful person behind it who may become a regular Wikipedia contributor. If you need any help with your reviews, please feel free to ask me for help, or, if you prefer, ask at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation forum. I know that I asked dozens of questions there when I first started reviewing. Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Fitton

Hi Anne, I'm unsure how to use this 'talk' page, or how to respond to your message. You asked for me to confirm whether I'd wanted the article on Andrew Fitton artist to be submitted. I can confirm that I had intended for it to be submitted... I simply didn't know how to do it. Please could you advise me how to do so? Or give me any tips? thanks Rosie Oxley Impressions of Cardiff and Swansea User name ImpressionsCardiffandSwansea (daughter of Andrew fitton)

Hello, Rosie. I see that another editor has submitted it for you. Unfortunately, it has been declined because you didn't include references to independent sources, such as news reports, reviews, magazine articles, books, etc., in which journalists and other authors talk about his work. If you have newspaper clippings or other evidence that he is a notable artist, you should add references to them, (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) and then click on the "Resubmit" button at the top of the article. Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Retire this account

Hello, I would like to retire this account and all content associated with it:

Joslin735 (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Question for administrator

{{admin help}} The above appeared on my talk page here after I had tried to help a user who had made two versions of an article under two usernames. I'm not sure how to deal with this, so I am requesting that an admin take over. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I see the user has had the account renamed, which may be enough, but I have given a message describing WP:CLEANSTART and WP:RTV, the two options if s/he wants more than that. JohnCD (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocking procedure

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

Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Translating an article into English

Hi Anne,

I´ve found you on the teahouse page and would appreciate your guidance and advice. I`m quite a newby in editing. I would like to edit an english version of "my" article about an acapella vocal group Klangbezirk Klangbezirk

At first I´dont know how/where to start to translate an existing german article in order to contribute to the englisch wikipedia. I´ve read the German help pages but I did not find a satisfying answer, but warnings, that it would be difficult. I´ve heard about teahouse and that´s why I decided to look for a mentor there. Can you help me discovering the universe of wikipedia? Best regards --Manuela2012 (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Manuela2012. Well, here goes:

1. You should make sure that you have some reliable independent sources about your topic: news reports, reviews, magazine articles, etc. They don't have to be in English, but they need to discuss the topic substantially. I can tell you that the German article does not have enough; personal websites, blogs, announcements of upcoming performances don't count.
2. Create a page in the English encyclopedia to work on your article. You could call it User:Manuela2012/Klangbezirk. Just type that into the search box, and when it says "You may create the page", click on the name of the page. The edit window will open, with "Creating page" at the top.
3. Open a new tab on your browser. Copy the URL that you added above into a Google search box. You should see the German Wikipedia article on the list, with "translate this page" at the side. Click on "translate this page", and you should see the article in English, sort of.
4. Cut and paste any of the text that you want from the article to your new page and save the page. To get the infobox and the references you will have to edit the article and copy the source code for the box and the references onto your new page.
5. Save the new page. Now you have a draft article.
6. Fix up the article; the translation is only approximate.
7. When you think it is ready, add {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. This will tell the reviewers that you are ready to have the article checked over You may have to wait a few days if there are a lot of articles needing to be checked.

Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, what a surprise - I didn't expect an answer after having found that "retired" button at the end of your page. So thanks a lot for your detailed description - it is very helpful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuela2012 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Article under construction

Hello,

The article i am editing at present in my sandbox looks like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amellondon/sandbox

Please could you review and could you kindly advise how the article formats in to Wikipedia layout ie: with a picture etc? is this something that's done once my article is finalised and ready to go live?

Regards Amellondon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amellondon (talk • contribs) 22:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello I don't understand how to talk on your page, please advise, and thanks for the invite to the teahouse, look forward to being apart--Amellondon (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Amellondon: You have used the talk page the right way - you'll get used to it. Your article is not ready to go into the encyclopedia yet. First, only one of the sources listed looks like it may be a news story. All of the rest appear to be press releases, announcement, and material made by the person himself or organizations connected to him. What's needed to show that he is well known enough for an article in Wikipedia are several sources such as news reports, reviews (not blogs, wordpress, facebook, but in real publications), magazine articles, etc. that are written totally independently by journalists and other authors. Also, unfortunately because your first article is about a living person, Wikipedia requires "inline citations" to back up facts about the person (not surprisingly, people are annoyed when incorrect information is published about them). There is a help page that shows how to do this at wp:Referencing for beginners. If you get stuck you can ask me or the Teahouse hosts for help.

As soon as you have done this, type this at the top of your article: {{subst:submit}} and save the page. This will put it in the queue to be reviewed for the encyclopedia. It may be declined, but if it is the reviewers will tell you what to fix, and you can submit it again. By the time it passes it will be a good article and your second article will be easier.

July 9 deletion nominations by Techatology

Thanks for pointing that out. I've restored all three of them and notified the editors concerned. Unfortunately it looks as if only one of them is still editing. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Have I reached 10 edits yet?

Hello,

Few questions Have I reached 10 edits yet? and when will my account be fully confirmed for me to be able to submit my article? Now I've submitted my article for review in the sandbox section what's the next procedure going forward? do I now wait or do I also submit it in another section? How do I upload a picture it is to go with the article?I accidently posted 2 articles in the sandbox area for review however it is only the most recent 1 that I want to keep, how do I get rid of the others? could you delete for me please. Also the article once reviewed and active on Wikipedia id like called nicky slimting walker, so when you type it in google it comes up. --Amellondon (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Look forward hear from you

email: amelun

username amellondon--Amellondon

Dear Amellondon: Your article,Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nicky Slim Ting Walker is now correctly submitted. (The others have been removed.) In the future, please don't make more than one copy of an article. If an article is in the wrong place it can be moved instead of another one made; that way there are no abandoned old drafts to clean up.

At the top of the screen you will see on the right a row of options, one of which says "Contributions". If you click on it you can see everything that you have done so far. There seem to be more than ten items on the list, and your account is four days old, so you should be autoconfirmed.

Your article should be reviewed soon, but it will be declined because it doesn't have any references. I have added a references section for you. All articles on Wikipedia have to have references to news reports, magazine articles, books, music reviews, etc., to demonstrate that the subject has been covered in the media and is well known enough to be in an encyclopedia. Blogs, facebook, etc., don't count - the reports have to be in recognized publications with editors, and can't have been written up by the subject or people connected to him. You should start looking for these press write-ups and add them to the article. If the article is declined before you can add them, don't worry, there will be a "resubmit" button on the page; just continue adding the sources and then click on it. Good luck with your article. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of Walker's Auctions

Hi Anne. I was told that my article for Walker's Auctions was okay and it was kindly moved to the mainspace with a tag that it needs to be reviewed. Since I know you do "Articles for Creation" (Hannah Franklin), I am hoping that you could take a look at it and let me know if there were any issues or remove the tag if it's okay. Also I'd like to know if it's okay for me to ask you directly or would you prefer that I use the Teahouse? The coverage of Montreal artists and art institutions is very spotty, so I am trying to improve the situation. I know wikipedia likes auction houses and Walker's is the largest reseller of Inuit Art in Canada and hence the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walker%27s_Auctions Thanks again. HeatherBlack (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello HeatherBlack. It looks like another editor already removed the tag. It's fine to ask for help on someone's talk page. The only problem is that the person may not see the message for some time (not everyone works on Wikipedia every day). When you ask at the Teahouse, one or more of the hosts is usually hanging about. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Anne. I haven't quite figured out all the ins and outs of submitting articles and I was more concerned that an administrator or someone with the right authority reviewed it than I was with time. But yes I do like Teahouse for common and immediate problems. You are all great! Thanks again. HeatherBlack (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Heather: Actually, most of the people who review articles aren't administrators. There are over 100,000 active editors on Wikipedia, and fewer than 2,000 are administrators. With over four million articles, they can't look at them all. They are there for us to call on in case of a dispute or a tricky problem, but the rest of us are just editors like you who have been around a bit longer. I hope you continue to make articles about arts topics, and maybe after a while you will be helping out the new editors yourself. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

	The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar
	Congratulations, Anne Delong! You're receiving The AFC and Teamwork Barnstars because you reviewed 250 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! Mdann52 (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Guy Huygens

Hi, Anne! I don't know if you saw my comment on this article at the Help Desk, where I expressed concerns about copyright. I've looked at it again this morning, and it seems clear that (1) the French wp article was created by one of the many Franks on 16 October 2012 by copying more or less verbatim from here (2009 archive) or somewhere else carrying the same content; and that (2) our page was created on 18 October 2012 by one of the many Franks either by translation of the French article or by copying from here. I believe it should be blanked as a full-scale copyvio, but do not want to tag it without seeing what you think. Best, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Justlettersandnumbers: Sorry not to have responded. I was camped in a field at a bluegrass festival in a rural area with no internet access for three days. I have now posted at the help desk, but my reply may not be all that helpful. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, and np. I've taken a somewhat zero-tolerance approach at the article, but am fully open to suggestions as to how it could better be dealt with. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You might not have seen this. Just to say, well spotted there! I don't think I would have picked that up. Best, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers, for sorting this out. I am in the middle of some stuff at Afc and probably wouldn't have done anything more about it myself. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ekin Tunçay Turan

Hello... Will you please tell me how did you decide about her so fast? Did you research on the internet? If you did so, how can you judge websites as being no reliable independent sources to show notability or to verify the information although you don't know Turkish? There are also English websites which gives information about her, that you may find unreliable! It's really hard to understand your approach. You're living in Canada and qualifying someone -that you know nothing about - of being not notable. I wonder why you chose to be destructive instead of constructive. (like Ssilvers) Will you enlighten me how did you come to the conclusion that her information must be deleted? What's your purpose of sending message to Wikipedia-TURKEY? (Türkiye) Are you trying to prove that you know better than them? Thanks in advance.Movericks (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Movericks: The reason that I proposed the article for deletion was because the main part of the article had to be deleted because it was illegally copied from a web site. The part that was left was just a list, and wasn't an article itself, and none of the sources were independent. The article could only stay if someone knowledgeable fixed it up. That's why I notified both the Wikiproject Theatre and Wikiproject Turkey. People who know about theatre would be most likely to want to save the article and also to know what to write in the biography. People who could speak Turkish would be most likely to be able to add some sources. I really hoped that someone from these projects would act to improve the article so that it wouldn't be deleted. It has partly worked, since the biography has been rewritten.

About the sources: In Wikipedia, the word "notability" means "written about extensively in reliable publications independent of the subject". All Wikipedia articles must have references to these independent sources. This means that the theatre that employ her, her agent, or her own web site are not acceptable sources to show notability, no matter what they actually say, because they are not independent. What's needed are some news reports, theatre reviews that talk specifically about her, magazine articles, etc. If you speak Turkish and can find some of these, please add references to them to the article.

A proposal for deletion doesn't mean that the article must be deleted, only that a decision about whether to delete the article needs to be made, and it gives other editors a chance to speak for or against it, or to improve it. Since you obviously think the article should be kept, please go to the discussion page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ekin Tunçay Turan and say why you think it should be kept. If you can say that you have improved the article by adding independent sources, this would be a very strong positive reason for keeping the article.

Good luck, and thank you for taking part in making the encyclopedia. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nicky Slim Ting Walker

I would like to kindly ask you is asking another editor to edit my article for an option? if so i'd--Amellondon (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC) like to kindly ask can you edit my article for me so it meets the Wikipedia criteria, it was in the queue for review however i have been asked to continue editing it and to resubmit it.

I'd if appreciate your help and assistance if possible.

Kind regards

Amellondon

Dear Amellondon: I see that your article about Nicky Slim Ting Walker has been declined because it doesn't have any references to reliable, independent sources. This means that to have a Wikipedia page Mr. Walker must have been written about extensively in news reports, magazine articles, movie revies, books, etc. I checked on the internet, and all I could find about him were a casting call, a couple of press releases, a mention on a facebook page, etc., all of which appear to be closely connected to him or his film. I would gladly help add the sources to the article if I could find any. Since the film has not yet been released, this may be the reason that it has not yet had any film reviews or other articles written about it or about Mr. Walker by journalists. Unless you know of several of these, your article will not be accepted into the encyclopedia at this time. Perhaps you could try again after the film is released in the theatres. At that time, if you do get some independent press coverage, and have trouble adding the information to your article, ask me again and I will help. Sorry! —Anne Delong (talk) 10:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ histmerge requests

• Please, how more Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/... history merge requests are there likely to be? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Anthony Appleyard: I am sorry if i have been causing you extra work. I know that history merges are not the most enjoyable thing to do. I would do it myself if it were allowed.

At Afc there are about 200 submissions per day. Occasionally inexperienced editors will accidentally or deliberately delete the submission templates from their articles, in spite of warning text to leave the templates in place. This leaves them no way to submit their articles for review. Many manage to solve their problem by posting at a help page, but over the last two years there have been an accumulation of about 2000 articles which remained "stuck". About 20% of these solved their dilemma by cutting and pasting their articles to mainspace and abandoning the draft articles. Recently a bot has been marking these old drafts with a category so that the Afc reviewers can deal with them.

I've been going through the list in alphabetical order, comparing the title of the drafts with titles in mainspace. I've been asking for merges on about half of the ones that I find; if there were only a few edits by the same editor who did the pasting I have been requesting speedy deletion under G6 {houskeeping) or G13 (abandoned Afc drafts). I've only been requesting merges on ones in which either there were multiple editors or where most of the development was done in the draft article over a significant time period. I don't know how many there will be, but I can tell you that I am up to the letter J in the alphabet.

This category really needs to be cleaned out; once the backlog is gone we hope to catch new "stuck" submissions quickly before the editors get frustrated and abandon them. However, if you think that I am overloading the system, I can limit the number of requests per day, or I am open to suggestions for a different way to deal with them. What do you think? —Anne Delong (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• It would help if some other admin helped me by taking over part of the load of history-merging, as long as this rush lasts. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Well, Mark Arsten was helping for a while. Maybe he would do some more. There are other reviewers working on rescuing some of the articles, and by removing those that can be fixed mechanically I am trying to make their work more efficient. Would it be a good idea to post a message on the Administrators' Notice Board noting that there will be a lot of history merges to be done over the next few days? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty bad about checking the queue, but feel free to give me as many assignments on my talk page as you like. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Mark. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• If you perform any histmerges, please log them in Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Since I am not allowed to do history merges, I presume that your comment was aimed at Mark. Or do you want me to check my watchlist and do the logging? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I think that was my mistake, I'm bad with paperwork. Sorry Anthony!
    • @Anne Maybe one of these days you'll be able to do them yourself :) Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Oh, joy! —Anne Delong (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Please, how more Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/... history merge requests are there likely to be? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Dear Anthony: I am up to the letter M now in the abandoned draft category, so likely there will be about the same number to go as I have sent already. However, among the regular submissions, there will never be an end, because inexperienced users are creating more every day, partly because the "Move" function is well hidden in the main interface. The reason that I am trying to get these done is that all of the submissions which haven't been edited for six months are about to be deleted, which is fine for those which really are abandoned, but the ones that are pieces of the history of accepted articles really should be attached, especially in cases where the person who did the cut and paste is not the originating author, or where the article is really years older than the current history indicates. I really haven't been doing as many as before...I just got back from a "dialup only" area. I don't know how else to deal with this problem; do you have a suggestion? Maybe you should just let them sit in the merge request queue and see if another admin will come along and do them. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• I am sorry to have seemed impatient. I realise that this causes much work for you also. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, a seemingly unending stream of history merges isn't my idea of fun, either. I took time out today, though, to participate in two musical events, so I only did a few this morning. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Musical events :: yesterday afternoon & evening I went to a big Hallé Orchestra concert in the open at Jodrellbank. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Swan Gallery

Hi Anne,

I submitted a page for The Swan Gallery but it was rejected for note having third party references to it. I have added a few others but most of the articles that we have been linked to have been for newspapers/magazines & don't have links to them online.

Regards,

Chris

Chrislamb33 (talk) 10:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Chrislamb33. I have rearranged your article to make it more like those already in the encyclopedia. Actually only one of the items that you added may be an independent source, and even that one may be a press release, since it doesn't have the name of a reporter attached and may have been written by someone from the Swan Gallery (you may know). The others are all definitely written by Gallery personnel.

I have deleted the contact information section from your article, since this is totally promotional and not appropriate. Those interested can go to the gallery web site for that information. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a free advertising web site.

Wikipedia only has articles on notable subjects. This means that the subject has to have been written about extensively by journalists or other authors not connected with the subject, who then published the information in established, reliable publications. Not all businesses fall into this category, and if no one has written about the Swan Gallery your article will not be accepted. However, the references do not have to be on line. If newspapers or magazines which are published only on paper have written about the gallery, you can add references to that as long as you are specific (article title, date, name of author, etc.) so that it can be checked, and as long as the writer was not connected to the gallery. I changed your one reference into a citation - you can see how I did it by looking at the source code.

I hope this helps. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

A page you started (Palmetto Education Association) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Palmetto Education Association, Anne Delong!

Wikipedia editor Rinnenadtrosc just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Palmetto Education Association is a great new article. Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment on Rinnenadtrosc's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Khim Borey may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Khim Borey}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

CSD G13

I notice that you are tagging articles for CSD G13. Are you aware that there is a bot approved to search for these and add to the cat?

There are two reason why you might consider doing other tasks:

1. Your expert time is valuable, and could be put to good use for tasks which cannot easily be done by a bot.
2. I've reviewed the code of the bot, and therefore feel comfortable deleting CSDs added by that both with spot-checks that the tag is correct (and after checking hundreds, have found zero errors). In contrast, when I see one added by a human, I want to double-check myself, so they take longer to process.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

BTW, after glancing around this page. I see you are doing great work with AfCs and the Teahouse. Thanks.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It really is complicating things. Can we talk?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't nominated any since reading your message. I am asking for more information at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template and then I will get back to you. In the mean time I will just keep a list.. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I've seen several appear since my message, e,g. Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/La_famille_Claudeenne at 13:54 UTC. Maybe there's a delay between nominating and appearing? No big deal, but I thought maybe you had missed the note.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to that thread, it's been informative, and I'll try to contribute there.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Two Quote for you

	Ali Award for you
	« There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance ». « People have either a brother of you in the religion, or brother of you in the creation». .Ali ۝ ۝ (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

CSI Immanuel Church, Ernakulam

Please see my response at WT:X. John Carter (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Ulysses Owens Jr.

Hi Anne,

Thank you for sending me the message about this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ulysses_Owens

It would be great it you could help me! I have tried to get this article up to snuff for some time, and it has been a little discouraging that it hasn't been accepted. I am also somewhat unfamiliar with the format for messages, so hopefully this finds you.

Thanks, Nick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicktgrinder1 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Nick: I have found a couple of independent reviews and added them to the article. This is the sort of thing that the reviewers are looking for, written, edited and published, not a press release or an announcement of a gig. I have formatted the first on so that it looks like a proper reference instead of just a URL. Remember that you can submit as often as necessary, as long as you keep making improvements in between. Mr. Owens is obviously well known, so it shouldn't take too much longer to get this accepted. I think the problem before was that some of the lists of awards didn't mention him, and information from his or his group's web sites are not independent. I'm sure that drummers often have this problem, getting less mention than singers or lead guitarists, even though they are indispensable to the sound of the group. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anne, I really appreciate you adding the reviews, yet the article was still declined. I believe you found some great articles on Ulysses, and I am slightly unsure of where to go from here. Any help you can offer is greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicktgrinder1 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Bumi Serpong Damai (August 25)

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

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

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Hasteur (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles for Submission/Emily Summers Design

Hello Anne,

I recently submitted an article for submission and it was rejected. I am intending on re-submitting it. How do I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreavictoria91 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Andreavictoria91! (Don't forget to sign your posts by typing for tildas (~).). Just click on the blue "Resubmit button" in the pink decline box. This should make a large yellow box appear either at the top or the bottom of the page. Then you will know that it is resubmitted. Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Resubmitting article - help!

Dear Anne,

You may recall my article Algeco Scotsman never appeared. I'm not sure what I did wrong and I'd like to try again. Could you assist me with that? Any common mistakes you think I may have made in submitting?

Thank you for your help.

Lisa 68.54.252.53 (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Lisa: Hello again! The first thing you should do is log in. Then you will see at the top of the page your sandbox. You can write the article there, but remember to save (not just preview!) at least after each paragraph or new section that you add. If you are not sure it's working, you can send me an e-mail and I will tell you if I can see it.

When you are ready to have your article reviewed, add {{subs:submit}} at the top of the page and save.

Common mistakes: Not writing from a neutral point of view, not including references to reliable sources, and using mainly closely connected sources instead of independent ones such as news reports, magazine articles and books. Also, it's not necessary to create a long involved article to be accepted. Just some basic facts and enough independent sources to show that it's a notable (widely written about) subject, then submit. You can always add more after it's accepted, or even while it's in the queue. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

Thank You

Thank you for telling me that my article was deficient. What do I do now? Kiwanis2015 (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

(This message was moved from the bottom of Anne's user page, where unfortunately it was not seen until weeks later.)

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/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)