User talk:Anne Delong/Archive 10

This the archive of messages posted on Anne Delong's talk page, January to March, 2015.

Happy New Year Anne Delong!
Happy new year 1.svg

Happy New Year! Anne Delong, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica1000 01:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

2015 already
Hi Anne. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and another opportunity to say what a wonderful job you do at  AfC. .--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
 * Thanks,, and I wish you a good year as well. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
 Dear , HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, --FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Interview for The Signpost
This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (remark)  @ 20:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Newport Beach, California
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Newport Beach, California. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Anne,

I do not know Antano personally, I'm new to wikipedia and new to writing in general. I wanted to get some experience writing in the formal style wikipedia requires and to pursue a project in journalism and biography writing, of a local personality I admire. I thought this was a good starting point,

Wikipedia did not approve my article however saying the writing style wasn't in line with what they expect. Since you are experienced in this field I would really appreciate it if you could give an edit to my article and/or show me where I have gone wrong and what i can do to improve my writing. If you have any articles of yours I could help out with please do send them my way i would love to help and learn.

Regards, Jason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkgoesthepaper (talk • contribs) 18:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

IdeaLab proposal
There is a proposal at the IdeaLab that may interest you. Lightbreather (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: email
You mention the technical code and say about it "you will likely find uninformative". If you're using good grammar, yes, that's correct, but if you're using bad grammar, I think you're wrong — I can't properly interpret it, but others might. What if we copied everything down to "X-PMFLAGS" into a WP:RDC request? Of course we'd omit email addresses, bits of the actual email that appear in the content preview, etc., but most of this is simple computer-generated stuff that wouldn't be a problem if posted publicly, unless you don't want people to know which antivirus program you use :-) I have a suggestion that might be relevant; I'll post it on-wiki if you're okay with having components of the email on-wiki, or I'll send it in a reply email.  Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * When I said that the code was uninformative, I meant that the relevant technical information about the supposed first email is absent - if it was a real e-mail the text of it was likely copied and pasted rather than replied or forwarded. If I was sure that the user who sent it to me had really received it, I could ask him to send the code from his end, assuming he knew how to do it, but I've avoided contacting him.  If you have time to do this, I am fine with it, but otherwise it will have to wait until tomorrow.  I am leaving now for a celtic session and won't be back until midnight, when I will be in no shape to deal with this (not as young as I used to be). Thanks again for offering to help. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, I have to apologise because I misunderstood your meaning on the technical information, and because I have no further suggestions on what to do. Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't apologize; I appreciate your efforts to help. I hadn't thought of asking the Computer Science guys. However, I think what I need is to find someone who understands the internal Wikipedia e-mail system in particular rather than e-mail processes in general.   You said you had an idea - did you change your mind about that? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (whoops, forgot to ping.) &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your antivirus left comments about whether it thought the email had been spoofed. That was the stuff that I particularly wanted to point out to the WP:RDC people, if we put the thing on-wiki.  Of course, this assumes that the comments were attached to what you received, i.e. that they weren't simply added when you sent the email to me.  Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , the comments were from my antivirus and my provider's spam filter, so they are are good information about the e-mail that I received. They don't say anything, though, about the e-mail that the sender claims to have received from me.  I think that the e-mail I received really did come through the Wikipedia e-mail system, but there are two questions remaining: (1) Is the user really who he says he is? (and actually I should not try to find this out myself - that's called "outing" and frowned upon) and (2) who, if anyone, sent a message to this person pretending to be me?  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood again; I thought you meant that someone had spoofed the Wikipedia email, i.e. the sender wrote something in his email client, made it look as if he'd used Special:Emailuser, and sent it off. Since the contents weren't disruptive, I doubt that there's anything more to be done; you remember that Special:Emailuser has a bit saying "in case of abuse, the checkusers can look at a log of your emails", so it's technically possible to know whether he sent you an email, but I doubt it's worth the effort of getting checkuser rights just so that you can run a check that violates the checkuser policy :-)  Other than that, my only suggestion is to hack a developer account and look at the email address listed for this user in the WMF database.  Nyttend (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I did wonder at first if it was a fake WP email, but that would be a lot of work for someone. Much easier to just create a Wikipedia account, and then send an e-mail pretending to be someone. Well, perhaps I'll just wait a while.  I haven't received any more emails looking for COI editing, so maybe it was just someone's idea of a joke.  Although I'm fairly computer literate, I've never developed either the skills or the interest in hacking.  Thanks again for your efforts. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

John Alexander MacWilliam
Dear Anne Thank you for taking an interest in my article on John Alexander MacWilliam, and for your input and comments. I am new to Wikipedia (as a contributor anyway) and this is the only way I have come across so far of communicating with you. Yes I can assure you that the article has been written by myself and that I have not taken whole sentences from other sources - and also that I have not written any of this elsewhere. Alan McWilliam AGMcW (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, AGMcW. When you see an editor's signature, you will usually see a little extra word "talk" at the end of it. Just click on that to be taken to the editor's talk page. Then you can add a new message to the page by clicking on the little "+" sign at the top of the page, or by selecting "edit". I have accepted your submission, so you can find it now at John Alexander MacWilliam. I have removed some sentences and adjectives which seem to have been included to promote the importance of the subject; more may be needed to meed Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. (Neutral point of view). &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Anne. Thank you for accepting my submission and for your suggestions. I will have a go at tweaking the article in the ways you suggest over the coming weeks. Also, I expect to have another couple of photos which I may add in due course. By the way I have removed the "s" from his name. It seems to be a common error for an "s" to be added.

Ken Sibanda
Please assist with Ken Sibanda draft rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.60.10 (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Test Kaffeeklatsch area for women-only
Since WikiProject Women as proposed at the IdeaLab may take some time to realize, and based on a discussion on the proposal's talk page, I have started a test Kaffeeklatsch area for women only (cisgender or transgender, lesbian or straight).

It is a place where women can go and be sure they'll be able to participate in discussions without being dominated by men's advice, criticism, and explanations. If interested, your participation would be most welcome. Lightbreather (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No, thanks, Lightbreather. I avoid these types of gatherings in real life, and will do so here as well. Between math, computer programming and bluegrass, I've been surrounded by men all my life, and frankly over the years I have had more trouble with intimidating women than men.  As well, I prefer not to participate in discussions where certain people are excluded, and I don't see the point in it, since anything discussed there would have to be discussed again in an open forum to gain general consensus.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * As you wish, Anne. I don't expect that all women will want to participate. Happy editing! Lightbreather (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

How new editors are treated very badly here on wikipedia
Please see the discussion here: Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 62

thank you. 750editsstrong (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:George Zimmerman
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:George Zimmerman. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
I finally got around to doing what I promised next month. Hopefully it is correct, or I didn't break it too badly. I would appreciate it if you would clean up after my mess. Thanks! 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 22:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Libertarianism
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Libertarianism. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

As a WER coordinator
I wonder if you could add Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations to your watchlist. I don't expect you to second nominations (that is what the page is for, although that would nice). Rarely there is a discussion regarding policy. There is one now. Your input would be helpful. Buster Seven   Talk  21:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

AfC Barnstar

 * Thanks, ThaddeusB. I thought you might be exasperated with me for whining about your edits to that missionary article. For a while there it was pretty tedious digging through the G13s, but it's a little more rewarding now that solid content is coming out the other end of the pipe. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No hard feelings. We have the same goal here - to see as much salvageable content saved as possible. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, I wanted you to be aware I deleted Draft:Walter W. Buckley, III which you'd previously G13 delayed due to copyright concerns and started a new article on the same subject at Walter Buckley (businessman). --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I noticed that, since the page was still on my watchlist. That's great, ThaddeusB. There was a time when there were 50,000 abandoned pages in AfC, the G13 bot was nominating 50 pages every four hours, and there were only three or four of us looking at them.  It was all we could do to just quickly glance at and postpone a small percentage of them, let along fix them up.  Now my list is impossibly long, so anyone who checks one out and takes it off my hands has my sincere thanks.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Adjusting pilot start date - WP:Co-op
Hello  Anne Delong ,

I'll be putting out a formal update sometime soon, but I wanted to inform you that I've decided to push our start date back to mid-February rather than in January. There are number of reasons for this, but the biggest factor is that we are now facing the hard work of implementing our designs on the Mediawiki interface. It's a limiting environment to work with from a web-building perspective, and the team that worked on the Teahouse can offer similar testimonials to these challenges. We also want to make sure there is time for us and for you to test the environment out, ask questions at our project's talk page, and give us a little time to make any last changes before we start inviting editors to the space. If some of you know you will be unavailable during this time, it's totally fine if you need to bow out for the pilot. But we do need all the mentors we can get, so even if you can take the time to mentor just one or two editors, that would be fantastic. Thanks a bunch, I, JethroBT drop me a line on behalf of Wikipedia:Co-op.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through   MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Magnum Crimen
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Magnum Crimen. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC - Helper Script access
An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to  comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anne. I noticed your  comment  here. There is a long tradition  of admins according  rights that  are even far  less important  than AfC reviewer. The effort here is not  to  give admins more power but  to  prevent all  and sundry  from  reviewing  pages which  is AfC's major problem. I realise that  the AfC regulars are resistant  to  change and progress, but  this is a small  but  important  step  that  will  lead to  greater things for AfC as soon  as we get  a new teanm of programmers on  board who  know how to  work  in  a collaborative environment. The actual emergency  process being  proposed is very  similar to  the way  we work  at  WP:PERM, but  I  notice you  haven't  worked there since being  given the mop  so  perhaps you  may  wish to  take a look  there and see how it  functions. You'll see then that  we cannot  possibly  allow anyone to  grant the rights, and the only  available editors with  access to  fully  protected pages are, well, admins. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Yes, I am aware of all this, and I appreciate the time that you have been taking to keep the list of reviewers in order.  I was trying to make a distinction between technical work and decision making work.
 * Who will edit the protected page? Well, obviously, admins. I was not suggesting that non-admins be given the right to edit the list page after it's protected, because as you say, that won't work.
 * Who will decide who is on the participants' list? I was suggesting that once the page is protected (which makes others, not me, nervous because they regard it as admin-creep) we find a way of dividing up the work of checking out prospective new reviewers so that admins wouldn't have to do it all.  Then the admin's task would be to say "ah, SuperReviewer says that she's checked out MrNewbie and that he's ready to be a reviewer, so I'll add his name to the list right away."  which wouldn't take up too much time.  I thought that the reason for your proposal was that you were tired of having to patrol the participants list. This proposal eliminates most of the editors who might want to help with this, while not reducing the amount of patrolling work, just moving it to the talk page. If you really do think that a random admin would be more accurate at deciding who's ready to review than one of our AfC regulars, I have to disagree, and likely most admins would too, and not get involved.
 * Will this prevent bad reviews from inexperienced editors? It will eliminate some that are being done right now between the time that new reviewers sign themselves up and the time someone notices that they've done so. However, reviewing is complicated and takes experience, and a lot of bad reviews are done by people who are legitimately on the list.  I'd like to see a process whereby prospective reviewers pick out pages they feel they could review, and make postings about them on the Reviewer Help page.  Then our regulars could discuss with them and if they see that an editor is making progress in learning the policies and processes, "endorse" him or her on the talk page of the protected page, for admins to see and do the actual enroling. But that's another proposal, so I didn't write that on your proposal page .&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't  believe for a moment  that  this minor hurdle will  put  any  seriously  minded reviewers from  registering. Moreover, many  others are  are likely  to  see it  as another hat  to  collect. I  do  urge you  to  take a look  at  WP:PERM and see what  goes on  there. Most  requests are processed in  just  a few hours and the admins don't  need thier work  reviewing  by  non admins.  The admins who  work  there are also  exrtremely capable, as are indeed practically  all  admins -  that's why  we elected them ;)  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Not saying they're not capable, just busy. I never suggested that non-admins would review the work of admins - just do some leg work. You have a point about hat collecting, although I never could understand the whole concept, either of those wanting these so-called hats, or of others objecting to their having them, or how they make the distinction between legitimate and objectionable "hat" use.  It seems to me that some people just like to complain, so they invent things to complain about.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Complain is what  people do  who  have no  intention  of contributing  to  making  things better.  For example, there are a few people who  have actually  made more edits complaining  about  admins and adminship  than they  have in  any  other namespace -  and they've been doing  it  for years. Interestingly  not  one of them has ever once made a single suggestion  for improvement. Highlighting  areas for improvement and then being  get-up-and-go  about  it is hardly  complaining. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No disagreement there - I certainly wasn't referring to you, but to the "many others" you mentioned above. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism
Anne, I have revdel'd something from your talk page and blocked the user. In extreme cases like this I don't  believe there's anything  stopping  you  from  doing  it  yourself if you  have the tools. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I should have done it, but I was in the middle of something else and wanted to get back to it before my limited attention span ran out.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome :) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Kudpung. Judging from this edit, I suspect that there may be a connection with this user, the creator of this twice deleted article, and this user although "they" haven't edited signed in since 2013. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Possible. Anyway, I've made the rare move of blocking that IP for a very long time as well as any associated accounts. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Self-references
Hello Anne, thanks for the explanation on references. This has been my first wiki article on a living person (as opposed to dead ones or places), and it's taken me a while to get my head around some of the subtle differences that haven't been obvious to me. Plus, since it's more "current" I've had several chicken-and-egg issues. As I get a better understanding of what's needed I'll keep a look-out for those kinds of items and insert them as I find them. Thank you! P.S. It's still listed as "may not meet notability"; can you give me a little more guidance on what else I should be looking for / adding, if/as I find it? - I'm trying to be brief but relevant, but am not sure I'm making the right choices here. Livingmegler (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello again Livingmegler. I have removed the "orphan" tag from the Susan Andereson (psychotherapist) article after I added a connection to it from another article.  That leaves the notability tag.  It seems to me that there are a fair number of references listed, but this is obscured because some of the facts and claims of importance are still cited to Anderson's own work.  My advice would be to move all of these to the publications section if they are not already there, and then set about finding replacement citations that are not written by her or her publishers, etc.  Some of the references that are already in the article may support these things, and you can just use the same one in several places, but also look for others.  I usually look first at Google Books, because printed published work is mostly fact-checked by editors and considered reliable (although these days there are more and more self-published books).  Because this is a medical topic, there may be information in medical journals, etc., if you have access to these.  If there are other writers in this area who criticize or contradict her theories, don't forget to include something about that - the fact that others are writing about her is what counts for notability, not whether they agree.  When you have added a few more references, then contact the editor who placed the notability tag (I believe in this case,, and ask he/she would be willing to remove it. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 5 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Draft:John William Baird page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=645771662 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F645771662%7CDraft:John William Baird%5D%5D Ask for help])

Please comment on Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Meta subject might interest you.
Hello Anne. I recall that in the past you mentioned your expertise in statistics. From time to time I've seen "sockpuppet investigations" which are presented by well-meaning but unsophisticated editors who cite what they think is probabilistic evidence of wrongdoing by various editors. There is one such case up on the Noticeboard now. It concerns an content-oriented editor, a woman named Steeletrap, who seems to have attracted more than her share of accusations and confrontational dissent, particularly because she seems to edit many articles concerning fringe or otherwise controversial subjects.

At any rate, the SPI thread here: is troublesome because for lack of clear policy or procedure concerning these pseudo-probabilistic hunches, there's lots of needless energy devoted to such cases. I thought you might want to have a look and at some time share your thoughts about developing policies or procedures which would make these threads go more smoothly with fairness to all. The more independent eyes we have on these matters the more chance we have of making these things better. If this is of no interest to you, please feel free to disregard. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk  20:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:Co-op news for December 2014 – Feburary 2015
Hey, it's been a while. The Co-op team has been hard at work during over the winter, so let's get right into what's been happening: Thanks to all of the new mentors who have joined over the past few months. Big thanks to to posting about our little project here to the gendergap-l mailing list. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC) on behalf of Wikipedia:Co-op.
 * Graphic design work is nearing completion and development work is coming along slowly but surely. The main components of the space, profiles, the landing page, and the mentor landing page have all been built, and we're basically just putting the pieces together.  We have close-to-final draft of the landing page, which is currently at User:Slalani/Landing_page, and in the thumbnail to the right.  You can check out other components over at User:Slalani if you're curious., , and I are working together on some of the front page elements.  We've also been doing some testing on test.wikipedia.org for profile building and matching.  If you're curious about checking that out, let me know.
 * We've finished up a survey for newer editors to assess their experiences of using existing help spaces (e.g. Reference Desk, Teahouse, IRC, The Wikipedia Adventure) on en.wikipedia.  is putting together a summary of that survey, and in the meantime, some findings from that survey of 45 newer editors include:
 * On average, editors found contributing to Wikipedia to be easier after using the help space compared to before.
 * However, after using one or more help spaces, only half of editors reported that editing, addressing social challenges, and resolving technical issues were easy or very easy. The other half of editors were either neutral, or reported that these matters were difficult or very difficult.
 * Just under 30% (11 of 38 editors) of newer editors said they probably would have stopped editing entirely had they not received support from the help space they used.
 * Editors frequently reported either 1) that they would not have been learn what they needed without the help space, or 2) That they could have found it, but admitted that it would have been difficult or taken much longer.
 * We will be making one final move of the pilot start date to March 4th, 2015. This is the last move (I promise), because we can't afford to run the pilot any later than that.  So there it is:  March 4th or bust!  But we won't bust, because there are just a few things left on our plate before we can run our pilot successfully.  I'll be alerting you about when you will be able to make mentor profiles soon, so when you get a message about that, please take a minute or two to create your profile here (otherwise, you won't get matched to any editors!).

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

E-mail
Hi Anne, I received your message and am sorry that someone may be using your information. Here is the text of the email we first received:

"Hi American Benefits Council,

I checked your Wikipedia declined draft; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:American_Benefits_Council

I am a Wikipedian with high privileges, check my user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anne_Delong

I will do online research and rewrite the content in encyclopedic tone to get it approved on Wikipedia. Please respond if interested.

Regards, Anne"

It came from a weird Outlook email (mostly all numbers) that would not receive messages anyway; my first reply was bounced back. I apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your quick response.

Sincerely,

Jessie JessieCheerio (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . This is in no way your fault. Just so you know, although some experienced editors are given extra software tools to do advanced work, this doesn't give them any "privileges" over anyone else when it comes to getting pages included in the encyclopedia - that's a matter of policies and guidelines that have been arrived at by consensus after discussions by the general community - of which you are one! Good luck with your editing. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Israel
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Israel. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Interview about your work on Wikipedia
Hello Anne,

I was just chatting with OriginalSoni for a research project I am working on and he suggested I get in touch with you. My research looks at how the participation of Wikipedians changes overtime. The interview should last about an hour and can be conducted over Skype, google, or phone. Would you be interested in chatting sometime next week?

I look forward to being in touch,

Gabrielm199 (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

User:79.182.36.213/sandbox listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect User:79.182.36.213/sandbox. Since you had some involvement with the User:79.182.36.213/sandbox redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on WP:AN
Hello! You have been selected to receive an invitation to participate in the closure review for the recent RfC regarding the AfC Helper script. You've been chosen because you participated in the original RfC. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. This message is automated. Replies will not be noticed. -- QEDK ♠  T  ♥  C  14:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Stephen G. Roszel
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rosamund Pike
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rosamund Pike. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Davida Singer (February 23)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Davida Singer and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Anne_Delong Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onel5969&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Anne_Delong reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Carey Lohrenz article
I've added more references and resubmitted it today for re-consideration. You can check it out at Carey Lohrenz. TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia email re Newspapers.com signup
HazelAB (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit request for Sophie Hunter page
Can you please insert this parameter to Sophie Hunter's page as she has notable family members. You can just copy-paste the one I've coded below and just replace the parentheses with brackets for linking. The sources are in the page's family section. Thank you very much and keep up the good work you do here on Wiki! 89.144.230.37 (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * family       = ((Michael Gow (British Army officer)

Michael Gow))

(maternal grandfather)

((J. E. B. Seely, 1st Baron Mottistone

J. E. B. Seely))

(maternal great-grandfather)

((Timothy Carlton))

(father-in-law)

((Wanda Ventham))

(mother-in-law)


 * , it would seem that this IP is actually a blocked sock wanting to get content readded that was deleted because of his socky-ness. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noted that and was in the process of writing a reply declining the request when you posted.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clyde Arbuckle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Garden City. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:Co-op: Presentation at Wikimania 2015
Hey. I've put in a submission for a presentation at Wikimania 2015 called Is Two the Magic Number?: The Co-op and New Editor Engagement through Mentorship. I'll be talking about the state of finding help spaces on en.wiki and how our new mentorship space, The Co-op, factors into that picture. Reviewing will begin soon and I'll need your help to be able to present our work. Please review our proposal and give us feedback. If you would be interested in seeing this presentation, whether you are attending or not, please add your name to the signup at the bottom of the proposal (you do not need to attend Wikimania to express interest in presentations). I, JethroBT drop me a line on behalf of Wikipedia:Co-op.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Co-op: Mentor profiles and final pilot prep
Hey mentors, two announcements:
 * 1) You can now make your profile at The Co-op!  Please set up your mentor profile here as soon as you are able, as the pilot begins on March 4th.  It isn't very involved and should only take a minute.  If you need more info about what the different skills mean (e.g. writing, communication), please refer to these descriptions.
 * 2) Profile creation, invitations, and automated matching of editors, profile creation, that will be coordinated through and a few gadgets may not be ready for our pilot, and will have to be done manually until they are ready.  In preparation for the pilot, please read over these instructions on how we will be manually performing these tasks until the automated components are ready. I, JethroBT drop me a line on behalf of Wikipedia:Co-op.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crack in the Road, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cracked. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Billy Mackenzie
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Billy Mackenzie. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

hello
I Anne, I noticed you signed in at our event for Art and Feminism. I was wondering that since you seem quite familiar with editing on Wikipedia if you wouldn't mind dropping by early and potentially helping new editors out throughout the evening? Coat ellis (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Coat ellis. I will be attending a jam session at Sticks until 4 pm, and then I have to get something to eat and make a trip to East City, but I should be able to be there by six if that would be helpful.  I can stay as long as you want; I have another thing to do in Peterborough tomorrow morning, so I planned on staying in town overnight.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 6 would be perfect! Looking forward to meeting you. Coat ellis (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

John Halver Edit
Hi fellow Wikipedian,

I did not want to try to revert an editor, that should never last. but I wanted to stop by and comment on a change you made here. removing the "Father of Fish Nutrition" part should not be considered "highly promotional text" as this says (you have to scroll through a few names). The term "Father/Mother of ..." can be overused quite often (4 of the 50+ people listed on the fisheries page), but I consider this fundamental as to why he is entitled to a wiki page. Thank you so much for your work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.37.82.6 (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear 108.37.82.6: I suggest that you write you concern on the talk page of the article, HERE. I will then add my reasons for removing the phrase. Then we can invite some other opinions, perhaps from the WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing or WikiProject Biology, and see if we can arrive at a consensus.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alien (creature in Alien franchise)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alien (creature in Alien franchise). Legobot (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Burghardt Wittig, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Torsional strain. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

You gave an awesome answer in the Teahouse!


have i the right page ?
im after contacting anne delong but feel i have left the same message as this on barbara f pages' page ? Regards Rachael Reiko / Rachael murray

i pressed the button in the article above thinking thats how to leave a message for you.

Rachael murray (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Do I go to the back of some review queue, everytime that i make a minor edit whilst i am awaiting review ? only it been a few days since my last review and the quoted number awaiting review on my page hasn't changed at all in fact it's gone up not down. I ask because every time i make a minor edit to my article draft the number awaiting review keeps going up and up. How are articles reviewed ? are they reviewed on a first come first served basis or is it random event where someone who reviews comes along and reviews only the articles that they fancy the looks of ? Regards Rachael Rachael murray (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello again, Rachael murray. No, once you have submitted your article for review, you can keep improving it as much as you like, and it will remain in the same place in the queue.  In fact, it may help the draft to be reviewed more quickly, because pages that are in good shape are quicker to review, so sometimes obviously ready drafts are reviewed before they get to the top of the list by people who have only a few minutes to spare.  By the way, you don't need to use the "br" tags to create a new paragraph - just leaving an empty line  (pressing enter twice) will do the same thing.  The number of articles waiting for review is the total number, not the number ahead of you.  To see the list, in order, look at Category:Pending AfC submissions, and if you don't see your draft, select (next 200) to see more.  You can also see what's happening on this page: WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions/List, which can be sorted by date. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Anne Delong

Thanks Anne that is clear to understand although i resubmitted 5 days ago its got miles to go to get near the top of a very long list indeed.

is every one on wiki who call themself an editor able to review articles and other stuff ? or is anyone who is in the process of or has had published an article on wiki referring to themself as an editor? i ask because from reading other peoples talk page entries there seems to be rather a lot of officious sounding comments being bandied about. how can i tell if some one is able to review articles or not ?,

as far as my article is concerned rest assured your knowledge of karate will not be a drawback as the editorial content of the article is accurate, impartial, non-defamotry and referenced. where your skills come into play would be to tidy up the look and avoid me having to resubmit for something obvious that I am unable to see myself due to inexperience.

Regards Rachael Rachael murray (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, everyone (including you) who edits Wikipedia is called an editor, even if they never create an article but only improve existing ones. However, not everyone is ready to be a reviewer.  Reviewers have to be familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines about what makes an acceptable article.  The criteria and current reviewer list are here: WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. After each name you will see the word "count", and if you click there you can see when each editor joined Wikipedia and how many edits he or she has made.  I remember when I submitted my first article in 2012; it seemed to take a very long time for the article to be reviewed, so to keep from getting bored while waiting I started fixing spelling mistakes, etc., in other drafts in the queue, and asking questions as you are doing.  Have you considered leaving a message at WT:WikiProject Martial arts?  The editors there may be able to give you some pointers, and you will see other Karate articles being discussed.  About the officious sounding comments:  Some editors have been on Wikipedia for many years and really are experts; others are just bossy - anyone can edit Wikipedia, and this includes people with a variety of personalities - friendly, crusty, nosy, opinionated, shy, whatever. Some come from cultures where people have different standards of politeness.  It's a bit of a challenge getting along with everyone sometimes, but the main thing is to show patience. Remember that the discussions should be about improving Wikipedia, and try to take only what's useful rather than personal from each posting. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Reply for Anne Delong

Wow didnt know you are a reviewer. as you havent made any editing alterations whatsoever of my article can you review it ?

Regards Rachael Rachael murray (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Rachael murray, I see that most of your links don't go to internet pages that let you read the magazines. I presume that this is because the magazines aren't on line. Is the organization still running, and if so, have its tournaments been reported in newspapers, or have articles that are not written by the SKU appeared in magazines recently? I found these three items; are they about SKU?&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 02:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Reply for Anne Delong

Yes i too have found it difficult getting different outside sources but i think it is due to the SKU having their own quarterly magazine that has been running for years. anyhow i have managed to find webpage entries from acclaimed individuals stating that they were or are still members of the SKU and that they attribute something of their success to the SKU, also i have found other organisations in other countries as far a field as nepal & pakistan and in the uk that are citing the SKU in technical articles that they have written and they are using the SKU as reference in their articles, while others are citing the SKU on their web pages as they are currently or were once members of the SKU.

http://wckf.org/index.php

http://www.tigrakarate.co.uk/tki/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14&Itemid=54

http://wckf.org/view-member-detail.php?id=733

http://www.mskgroup.info/msk-history.html

http://wantagekarateclub.co.uk/wordpress/?p=107

https://mbasic.facebook.com/76818167519/photos/a.10150103770777520.292394.76818167519/10150113434582520/?type=1&source=46&refid=17

ive read some of the enteries from other sports on wiki and their editors dont seem as happy to adhere so closely to the ideal as i am trying to do because sadly a few of the reference that they have supplied are to their own webpages not outside sources and a couple of them led me to a blank http 404 dead end, so im not sure that i am continue any further with the writing of the page if i cant find different reference to the current ones in use as i strongly believe that the reference currently being used in the draft are from respected journals and books from withing the martial arts world. I'm also not so sure should i remove the links connected to the references that ive supplied in the draft or should i leave them in there. It seems an insurmountable issue for me, when comparing other sports entries, what do you advise Anne ?

Regards Rachael Rachael murray (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Rachael murray, I am out of my depth here. Not only do I know nothing about Karate organizations, but I have never been involved in any sport whatsoever. I think you should contact the editors at WP:WikiProject Martial arts for further advice. You may find people there who have copies of the magazines that you have linked, or at least will have heard of them, and who know where to look for better sources. I am happy to answer questions about format, but I am out of ideas otherwise, and I hate to see you working so hard on this without knowing first whether the organization passes notability in the martial arts world. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Anne Delong

Dont worry as we are even because I know nothing about bluegrass. You have helped me so far with some good advice. So speaking on a matter of format is the format of my draft ok ? is it just requiring different references ? I look forward to your response Anne. Yes i have worked hard on the project from obtaining permission from subject to write the article and to use their logo and through my wiki ignorance ive had to remove the logo and ive altered almost everything to comply to various suggestions from well wishers, i feel like for what ever reason there is a higher force out there saying forget it so your unbiased common sense input is helpful.

Regards Rachael

Rachael murray (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

May I Have Help with a Page?
I'm working on an article for Dream Catalogue, Bandcamp's biggest vaporwave label. It also held the first live vaporwave concert last February. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Blue_Gnome_Tree/sandbox Thank you,

Blue Gnome Tree (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Blue Gnome Tree: For a record label to have an article in Wikipedia, it must have been written about extensively in independent news reports, magazine articles, album reviews in edited publications, books, etc. Please find these before doing further work on the draft. The journalists or reviewers must be actual journalists and authors, not anonymous usernames, and the write-ups must be about the label, not only about the musicians whose recordings are being released. If you've found some published sources about this label, and need help adding them after reading WP:Referencing for beginnners, I can help with that. The label is pretty new, though, and appears to be pretty nebulous; it may be too soon for an encyclopedia article, which can't indulge in speculation if published sources can't be found. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Ms. Delong,

I was aware of that in the creation of the article, and I have found plenty of legitemate sources to bolster the information. Here are just some of the ones that I've found: Interview w/ Red Bull Music Academy Interview w/ Neonvice DC Interviews Vincent Remember VIRTUALIFE Concert Information VIRTUALIFE Info (DC) DC Interviews Vapererror DC Releases Reviewed by AmbientExotica

In a few weeks, I am even told, the owner of Dream Catalogue is going to be interviewed by VICE, which I will be sure to make use of. As a member of r/Vaporwave, I can basically sort out which artists are notable and which of them aren't. The current references on Wikipedia's Vaporwave page include artists who are are about as notable as those current, although a lot different from today. My primary concern for this article is articulating the references to Wikipedia standards, as well as re-wording some things, re-organizing some other things, etc. I can handle notability (they dominate the genre's bandcamp after all).

I started this project (which goes beyond the DC page) as a means of updating the current scene, which is in no way shape or form represented on Wikipedia; only the classic stuff is. If you could suggest to me any grammatical corrections, formatting techniques, or anything else that will be needed, I will be thankful. Thank you for your time,

Blue Gnome Tree (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Anne
Thanks Anne

Your advice has been positive understandable and well presented.

Regards Rachael

Rachael murray (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback
Hi Anne, thanks for your feedback on the United World Schools page in AFC. It was really helpful. Tinghuber2015 (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Heather Bresch
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Heather Bresch. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg. Legobot (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Gareth Wheeler
 * added links pointing to CFL and Sun TV


 * Jeff Dayton
 * added a link pointing to Today Show

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Patrick Casey
While reviewing pending G13 deletions, I accepted Patrick Casey (runner) because it looked to be in good shape already. After doing so, I noticed you had worked on the article today - obviously my list was a bit out of date. Anyway, 1) good work; 2) my apologies if my acceptance caused any inconvenience via an edit conflict or anything like that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, ThaddeusB; I hadn't even noticed. When I found the draft it had a speedy deletion tag on it; I just added some sources to justify removing the tag.  I don't know anything about sports, and I figured if I took time to ask the Athletics people the page would disappear.  Anything you want to take off my list is just fine with me, I won't have time to finish them all myself anyway.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Littleton, Colorado
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Littleton, Colorado. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject History Merge
Given your regular activity at WP:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen, I have added your name to the list of participants at WP:WikiProject History Merge, partly to keep the list from being empty. You are, of course, free to remove your name, if you so wish! Thanks, SD0001 (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's okay, SD0001, although I don't monitor the request list; I just happen to work in an area frequented by new users, so I come across a lot of copy-paste incidents, and fix them myself rather than report them.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)