User talk:Anne Delong/Archive 3

This is the archive of messages posted on Anne Delong's talk page, April to June, 2013.

Thank You
Thank you, for you help with the name placement it was difficult thank you sooo much! Hulk3200 (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Mike Yokohama: A Forest with No Name
This article is below 1,500 characters minimum. It's already raised in the nomination page. --George Ho (talk) 07:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder if you are telling the wrong person? I'm pretty sure that I didn't nominate this film for anything. I do remember leaving a message at the film project asking of someone could review it because it had been waiting for 28 days in the Afc queue, but it's not my article. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well... I did see logs of your contributions to this article. I expected too much. --George Ho (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the references! 123.225.52.180 (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Great input!
Thank you, Anne, with help for my Ivan Saric article. The problem I'm running into is getting information about him. It's just not out there. I tried soliciting Ivan directly for information through his facebook page, but I was ignored. If this guy doesn't know how to use the crowd, I was mistaken in considering him a notable (or potential notable). That being the case, I suggest this article for deletion. But all in all, this has been a great introduction to Wikipedia. The format is still a bit foreign to me, but in due time. Thanks again, Anne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atherahmedwashere (talk • contribs) 01:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I hope you aren't too disappointed. The page doesn't have to be deleted, though. Wikipedia has pages sitting around for years in the Articles for Creation section, and sometimes the subject of the article will do something amazing and get in the news a few months later and the article will be finished up. It's just text; hardly takes any space at all. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement and support, Anne. It means a lot to me. -Ather — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atherahmedwashere (talk • contribs) 04:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help
I edited the article (Glenda H. Eoyang), and hope it'll be published. Taljudy (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Taljudy:

I am afraid that the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Glenda H. Eoyang is far from ready for the encyclopedia.

First, there are two copies of everything, and I don't know which to look at. Please remove the extra material.

Second, there are promotional external links in the body of the article. These should be removed and if important placed in an "External links" section at the bottom of the article, after the references.

Third, your list of publications needs to be "bulleted" for appearance's sake. I've done the first few for you. Leaving a blank line between paragraphs will also make this article more readable.

Next, this article reads more like a resume. An encyclopedia article is a summary, not an enumeration, of a notable person's career. I found an example, Angelika Amon, which is about right. Notice that there are no external links in the article, because Wikipedia is not intended to promote any business or organization. In the section about her work, the important areas of research are mentioned, and each is backed up with a citation. If you look at the references indicated by the citations, a few of them are to her own papers, just enough to illustrate the type of work she does, and the rest are reliable outside sources, verifying the facts in the article.

Your reference section is a link to a list of citations. This is not an acceptable substitute for proper references. Even if a reader of your article had the time or interest to go through this list, many articles cite others' work in trivial ways such as "See also", or as general references. You have probably read many of these pagers, so find a few that have significant coverage of particular pieces of information in the article, and make citations to them at the appropriate spots in the article. If you would like to see how Angelika Amon's citations were created, you can click on the edit button of her page and take a look.

I hope you find this helpful. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Distinguishing between professional and unprofessional reviews.
I am currently working on making my article ready for submission. I had it reviewed to find out what I would need in order to make this page worthy of wikipedia. You reviewed it and mentioned that I would need to find and cite outside sources about the game that were not made for or by the game producers, and I would just like some help with looking for these sources. How would I distinguish between a prosessional review and an unprofessional one? I think this would help me out a lot in finding the sources to cite. Thanks again for your time, snd I look forward to your input. Cartographer23554 (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Cartographer23554. You have asked a very good question. There are reviews everywhere, these days, but many of them are on blogs, and are made by random people who happen to attend a performance or read a book. A problem with a site like that is that people who have a vested interest in a review can go in and review their own product and no one would know.

A professional reviewer is one who works for a newspaper, a magazine, or even a web site that specializes in reviews. These reviewers are independent and know their subject. There are also people who aren't paid, but whose reviews are trusted because they are acknowledged experts and known to be unbiased; however, it's hard to know which ones these are.

Another kind of review to avoid is one on a site that is also selling the item being reviewed, since these are usually self-serving, and almost invariably positive.

I am not that knowledgeable about video game reviews (my favourite game is Tetris and the last game that really captured my attention was made by Infocom). However, I can give you an example of gamespot.com. They have both professional and amateur reviews, but you can tell the difference because the amateur ones are in their blog section and the professional ones are marked "editor" like this one: Need for Speed. You can tell that the site is properly managed.

I hope this helps. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

My article submission
Dear Anne, My article was declined by you. I am very new to wikipedia and really need some help as this is my first article. Please help me in getting appropriate inputs. I would really appreciate your help. I do not even know if this is the place to write you a message. If this is, and if you see this message please respond and give me a solution.

Thanks and Regards, Kishore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikishore1985 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi there,

I was trying to submit a new article about my friends band (The Royal Blasphemy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Royal_Blasphemy). You denied cuz you said that I need to "find some independent news articles or reviews (not blogs) about this group to verify both notability and the information in this article." All the information there was give to me by the band itself. I added some links to there facebook, official webpage, isn't that enough? Or do you want me to send you an e-mail write from the band saying that that information it's true?

Thanks for your help, Mr Omega — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrOmega13 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Omega13:

I'm sorry; I guess my note wasn't clear. What Wikipedia means by notability is that the band has to have been written about by professional writers such as journalists, authors, reviewers, etc. I didn't ask for references because I thought you were making it up (although this came in the other day...Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Saint Ampersand).

An encyclopedia is a summary and organizer of already published material. If nobody is writing about this band except the members themselves and their friends, then the band shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. If I were to close my eyes and pass it through, it wouldn't do any good, because there are thousands of other editors out there who, as soon as they see a page with no outside sources, will just delete it. As long as the article is inside the Articles for Creation section, it will not be deleted, and you can add to it and resubmit later if the band gets some press.

After getting your message I looked around on the web for a while, but all I could see about this band were items on sites where you post your own material, like Youtube, Facebook and setlist. There are plenty of such places intended to promote bands, but that's not Wikipedia's purpose.

I see that the band is from Portugal. Perhaps you can find some more local material to use as sources. Have they played at festivals or events? If so, did the local newspaper write about them? That's all I can think of. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ronnie_Mutimusekwa
Dear Miss Delong,

My article was rejected for being blank. I have re-entered the disappeared text and would like to ask you to re-review it.

Thank you. Saflieni Saflieni (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Deleted page
Editor Anne Delong Hello…

Kindly I receive a letter from you on my talk page a bout my Article for creation Emad Kayyam.

Actually I am trying to start an article named: ((Emad Kayyam Work)) on my sand box which discuss images and media published by Emad Kayyam in the Wikimedia Commons under the category "Emad Kayyam Work".

Kindly I hope you notice that all images & media under the category Emad Kayyam work in wikimedia commons is dual licensed by "CC by Sa 3" un ported & the GFDL and are created, designed and produced by me Emad Kayyam as the corresponding author.

I hope if you let me know if I can start this article on my sand box, or if you please suggest where should I start this article and what is your advice.

Thank you mush Emad Kayyam

--Dr. EMAD KAYYAM 15:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EMAD KAYYAM (talk • contribs)


 * Dear EMAD KAYYAM: Yes, your sandbox is a good place to write the article.  Don't worry, your images in Wikimedia should still be there if they are properly licensed. Even in the sandbox, though, you should not add copyright text from other documents.  Wikipedia tries hard not to have any such material anywhere.   &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Your question at Teahouse
I've added another suggestion to your question on where to post reviewing questions at the Teahouse. Keep up the good work! Espresso Addict (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Social media sites and notability
I would think that is the right forum... I would change your opening line to your proposal and if the people the frequent there think it belongs elsewhere, I'm sure they will tell you. Technical 13 (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've started the discussion. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Link colours
Following your question at the Teahouse, I thought you might be interested to know about the Linkclassifier script. It gives me a headache, but if you feel that you'd like your version of Wikipedia to look like a rainbow threw up on it, you may wish to give it a whirl! Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  13:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Yunshui, it looks interesting, and maybe I'll try it sometime, but for now I just wanted to be able to tell which submissions I had already reviewed. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Your review of BlogUpp article
Dear Anne, thank you for your consideration of my submitted article on BlogUpp and your suggested WHOIS resource. You added a great reference, appreciate it as well.

I've just included an infobox section, based on Wikipedia website template. The new information collected is based on WHOIS record suggested by you, as well as service's FAQ, which also mentions service creators. Please let me know if there's anything else you feel is missing and I'll do my best. —Ibjennyjenny (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you Anne for your kind support. I'm glad my submission has been accepted. Best regards, —Ibjennyjenny (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Giga Pets
Thanks so much for your help on my Giga Pets article. I will follow your advice and learn more tips at Teahouse! Rebfield (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peterborough Canoe Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Duck decoy (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) 14:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Editor of the Week
User:The Interior submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
 * has only been here since early December 2012, but has already completed over 3,000 edits. She is active on several Wikiprojects, checking and assessing new articles.  Despite only recently graduating from the "help" stage herself, she is already passing along what she has learned to newbs through the Teahouse (see her talk page for evidence).  She has started several new articles (HMCS Nene (K270), List of bluegrass bands, Dixie Flyers) and is keen on learning new wiki skills.  I think she should be recognized as an exceptional addition to the editing corps.  Thanks for your consideration,  The Interior  (Talk)

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: Thanks again for your efforts! Go  Phightins  !  17:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Congrats! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all you do. ```Buster Seven   Talk  01:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Congratulations from me too; well-deserved! Huon (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I take the afternoon off to go to a jam session, and look what happens! Thanks, everyone.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * PS - none of the skinny young musicians in that photo look anything like me! &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was already starting to wonder which one was you! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Anne. We can change the photo. ✅....Do you have one that you Like? Afterall, it will forever be enshrined in the WER Hall of Fame. ```Buster Seven   Talk  17:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Congrats to you Anne, and of course, thank you for all the hard work you did to earn the recognition. You make a difference here, and we are a richer place because of your efforts.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 16:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Congratulations and Thank you for being such a brilliant editor!!! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi!
Ocaasit &#124; c 19:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Article about Prof. Alain de Weck
Dear Mrs. Anne Delong:

Many thanks for your initial response regarding the article for "Alain de Weck". I have in the meantime completed an extensive article on this eminent scientist (who happens to be my father) in the English Wikipedia. There are extensive references including Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) to scientific articles that are relevant. I believe the article is ready to publish on Wikipedia. I saved it but am unsure if it is in your queue again to be reviewed. I hope it could be published in the next couple of days since my father passed away recently and there is a large community looking for an article on him.

If the English article is approved it is then my intention to create a n equivalent German and French version (a German article already exists but it is very short).

Many thanks for your help and best wishes. (Sorry I am new to Wikipedia and probably making many faux pas)

Prof. Olivier de Weck deweck@mit.edu Deweck (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Look at that!
Look at the train of thought I've just had: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Corps Palatia Munich --> -->.

Coincidence? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, there's a passing resemblance, but the barnstar design was uploaded years before the article, and the descriptions are in different languages, so unless you are seeing something that I am missing, it's a coincidence.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I reckon whoever created the barnstar was aware of the Corps Palatia. Anyway, it was just a curiosity. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article for Surbhi Jyoti
Hi Anne,

I am from India and know Surbhi Jyoti(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Surbhi_Jyoti) as an Television and Punjabi(Language) Movies Actor. I regularly watch Qubool Hai(Hindi Television Drama/Serial) in which Surbhi Jyoti is playing role of a girl named "Zoya Farooqui". She is becoming much popular day by day. Here by I request you to review this article again and guide me to make Surbhi Jyoti's article more authenticate.

Thanks, - Nizam Kazi Co-Founder, ArtLog DiGi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nizamkazi (talk • contribs) 10:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for advice about googling Hattie Nestel
Thank you very much for your advice about sourcing an article on Hattie Nestel. I appreciate it very much. And I apologize for using your personal email.

Marcia Gagliardi — Preceding unsigned comment added by HaleyAthol (talk • contribs) 17:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear HaleyAthol: There is no need to apologize about the e-mail. There are times when it might be appropriate to e-mail. However, when talking about Wikipedia, it's better to use the talk pages because the articles are a collaboration between many editors, so everyone can see what has already been discussed and don't keep making the same comments over again. Good luck with your article. By the way, there's a special forum for new editors called The Teahouse. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for uninvolved 3rd party to comment.
Hello. I am requesting your opinions at Talk:Thomas Savage (died 1611) as a third party to a discussion which I feel is nearing an impasse. I feel confident that if you chose to participate, your comments ideas and suggestions will be neutral and non-biased in favor or against either of the currently involved participants. If you do not wish to participate, I understand and respect your wishes. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Crawford Seven Step Model for Operational Excellence.jpg
Hi Anne, I am new to Wikipedia and don't really know my away around the system.

You have asked if I have permission for the above jpg.

I am the creator and owner of the diagram which is used in my whitepaper on Acedemia.

The methods to proof ownership seems a little perplexing, can you accept this message as permission?

Thank you for your help.

John Crawford — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikichange12 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Vote for the Girls
I do appreciate the review of my article for creation for Vote for the Girls. However, I do believe that there needs to be at least one other source (besides the Vote for the Girls web site) in order for what I believe is a resubmission for the Vote for the Girls article on Wikipeidia.

Other than that, I do respect the decision for the decline as I will try to get more sources and will be more than happy to get free images. Aeverine Frathleen Nieves (talk) 09:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Crawford Alchemy Blueprint for Operational Excellence
Good morning Anne,

Please would you review my submission again as I have added an extra link that should satisfy your reason for rejection. I have a book and whitepaper published on the subject and is not a whim title I am adding to Wikipedia.

Thank you.

John Crawford — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikichange12 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear John:

I have looked at your article, but I still don't see any citations to independent sources (not written by you or for you). Has your book received any reviews by journalists or other writers about change? Has it been discussed in the press, other than by its publisher? Have other papers been written that discuss it? I have not declined the submission again to give you more time to add these independent sources, but another editor may see the submission and decline it at any time. If the book and paper are really new, it may just be too soon because no one else has written about them yet. If that's the case, just leave the article where it is for a while, add the sources at a later date, and submit the article then. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

is this a duplicate
You seem to have marked Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Evolutionary Theory of Mate Selection as duplicate of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Evolutionary Theory of Mate Selection. This does not seem to make sense-- is this what you meant to indicate, or is it a duplicate or copyvio from somewhere else?  DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for find this. I cut and pasted the URL from the web site, but it seems my text copy didn't work and my paste buffer instead added the previous URL that I had copied. The copyright text box is so small that I didn't notice the difference.  I fixed it. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Robin Sutherland, leading restaurateur and retailer of the 1960s
You kindly asked who owned the copyright of the Obituary which appeared in the Daily Telegraph on 28/10/1998. The answer is that I wrote an Obituary piece for them on commission. The article I submitted to Wikipedia is my own original longer version which was edited back by the Telegraph. The fact that the Obit was commissioned and appeared would I hope justify Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I note that Robin Sutherland's original partner Michael Chow has his own entry which mentions much of the story from a different perspective. Many other references in the piece are also published in my book about the London restaurants of the 1960s, The Spaghetti Tree, Mario and Franco and the Trattoria Revolution, Primavera Books, London, 2009. Thank you again for your advice and assistance! Alasdairss (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Alasdair Scott SutherlandAlasdairss (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Alasdairss: It wasn't me that asked about the copyright issue. It must have been Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk, the one who placed the copyright notice. Wikipedia is pretty strict about making sure that all of its text is specially written for the encyclopedia, and is not just copies of material published elsewhere.  I declined your article for another reason:  To be the subject of a Wikipedia article, a person or their work has to have been written about extensively in the media or in books by those not connected to them (in this case restaurant critics, business and local news, etc.)  A book written by a relative could be used as a reference for facts, as long as its not the only source, but not to establish notability; only information published by independent authors and journalists count in that case.

About the copyright issue: I don't know about the Daily Telegraph, but most newspapers assume copyright of everything they publish, no matter who wrote it. The most straightforward thing to do would be to rewrite the text so that none of the sentences are the same as in the obituary or in any of your own published works. Then you will not need to worry about that issue at all. Before going to that trouble, though, make sure that you have found those independent sources mentioned above, or the article will be declined.

I hope this helps. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Kekoo Gandhy
Hi Anne Delong Thank you for looking over the page I had created for Kekoo Gandhy. You have ruled out the single reference that I had for this article so far, but I am unclear as to the precise reason, other than the reference should not be by the person. Does this rule out all published interview articles as references, then? What about interview-based articles about him? At least one US academic has produced an item on his life and work in such fashion. Of course, now that Kekoo Gandhy has died, there have been obituaries in several national Indian newspapers. But are any of these acceptable as references? Some of the information, I fear, about his early life is going to be unverifiable through references that are other than the interviews he gave while alive. Should I presume, then, that for Wikipedia purposes those elements of his life will have be absent? Thanks for your input. Kind regards Jim Moody — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmo (talk • contribs) 12:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Jim:

You have asked a very good question about published interviews. I believe that Wikipedia editors and reviewers take each case individually in this situation. For example, if a person is interviewed by a professional journalist, and the interviewer writes introductory information, we assume that he or she would have checked the facts before writing it. Also, if the person being interviewed gives non-controversial information, such as "My restaurant is in London, England", the interview can be used to back up that fact. Surely the interviewer would have spoken up it this obvious fact were not true. However, if in the same interview the person says "Everyone loves my spaghetti sauce.", that wouldn't be accepted. An independent food critic would need to write about that. In general, interviews are weak sources because most of the text is the subject's own words, and people don't always see themselves as others see them. The weaker the source, the more are needed to corroborate facts. However, if there are a number of different interviews published in reliable sources, they should be included as references, because the fact of being interviewed means that the subject had come to the attention of the press. Interviews which are not published shouldn't be used at all.

In reference to your article, I see that some of the events happened long ago. There are surely news reports about some of these happenings, but they may be hard to find because there was no Internet then. I faced the same problem when creating this page: Toronto Light Opera Association. I couldn't use my mother's first hand information as a source; I had to travel to a city library and look up old microfilm newspaper records.

By the way, I have removed the Op Cit references in the article and changed them to refer to the actual source. Op cit doesn't work well in Wikipedia, because people will come along and add a citation to a new source in between, and then the op cit points to the wrong reference.

I hope this helps. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Location of Mosport
Hi Anne, I agree with your post for me regarding the location of Mosport not being in Bowmanville. I actually have family that live just south of the track near Orono. For some reason the track to this day still has their address listed on their website as 3233 Concession Road 10, Bowmanville, and all major racing series including NASCAR and the American Le Mans Series have it listed as Bowmanville including on their international television broadcasts. I'm not sure why, but I believe they put the location of all tracks as being the nearest large population centre. TorontoGuy79

TorontoGuy79 (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Polygog/Quantum Keyhole
Polygog (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Quantum Keyhole
Hello Anne,

I am the author and copyright holder of the article you cite as copyright violation (http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.com/against-mainstream/4620-quantum-keyhole.html).

Please, restore my article my unpublished article. Please advise as to any other issue(s) that my inhibit publishing User:Polygog/Quantum Keyhole.

Highest Regard,

Kenneth Larimer

Just to clarify, the Quantum Keyhole article was post at wikipedia on 26 July 2010, while the http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.com/against-mainstream/4620-quantum-keyhole.html version was posted in November 2010 and cites the wikipedia source.

Dear Kenneth:

I am afraid that because the article was newly submitted I assumed wrongly that it was newer than the web site. I can't undo the delete directly, but I will contact an administrator to do so. However, the article will still be declined (but not deleted) unless you can show with several independent sources that Quantum Keyhole has been written about by journalists and other authors. It's part of Wikipedia policy that the encyclopedia isn't to be used to promote new terms and ideas. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The draft never was deleted. I've reverted the blanking and left a comment at the draft. Huon (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Draft page of Eurolib, references added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Eurolib

Dear Miss Delong,

My article was rejected as unreferenced. We have entered appropriate references alongwith the link to Eurolib website and to our members.

Thank you in advance to consider it. Liutprando Liutprando (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Draft page of Eurolib, references fixed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Eurolib

Dear Miss Delong,

I have fixed the references as requested.

Thank you once again Best Regards Liutprando

Liutprando (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Liutprando:

I see that you have added a couple of good references. However, now that I see your web site, I realize that instead or writing about EuroLib you have copied text from the web site. Wikipedia cannot accept text which is published elsewhere for copyright reasons. Each author must submit his or her own written work, and cannot submit as the representative of an organization. I have blanked out the parts that need to be rewritten.

When you have finished, look at the pink box at the top of the page and you will see a place to click to resubmit the article for review.

Also, please have patience and remember that Wikipedia is a world wide organization of volunteers. Reviewers are not always at their keyboards, and it may take some time before you receive a reply when you post a message. Your first post came in the middle of the night for me here in Canada. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

RE: Justice Action page
Dear Anne,

Thank you for your time reviewing the state of my article.

You state "Most of the citations you had were created by the group's own people," - In reference to articles I posted in which Justice Action representatives are used as media sources.

I'm not sure I completely understand this.

Whilst the majority of those sources involve Justice Action speaking about its own position on an issue - is not the repeated use of the organisation as a source of information/commentary, in and of itself - not a substantiation of its noteworthy status?

What type of article would be better? One in which Justice Action does not speak or give a position at all?

Can you please clarify? Can I use the articles I have listed? I'm confused as to what the threshold is here? Many of the articles establish the group as an advocacy service, and the unstated implication is that their opinion is noteworthy enough to be contribute to journalistic analysis or discussion of issues at hand.

What other forms of media would be available to a community group like Justice Action other than this sort of coverage?

Thanks a lot for your time and assistance.

answer on your comments on article draft David Prangishvili
Dear Anne Delong The information presented in the article is now confirmed by the references to the works of David Prangishvili. In all of these publications, in which the discovery of new virus families and their description are reported, David Prangishvili is a corresponding author. This means that he planned and directed the reported studies and that the work has been done in his research group. Moreover, there are articles in Wikipedia on the new virus families described by David Prangishvili and links to them are provided. In the revised article I also mention that David Prangishvili is the author of more than 130 publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals and books. Moreover, the link is provided to the list of foreign members of the Georgian National Academy of Sciences which includes David Prangishvili.

Best regards user anastrokovaAnastrokova (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Anastrokova:

Your article about David Prangishvili is looking pretty good, but it still needs some INDEPENDENT references, ones in which Mr. Prangishvili was not involved in the writing. The publications you put in are good content for the article, and can be used to confirm that fact that he wrote papers, but not for other information in the article. I found one for you in the Encyclopedia of Microbiology, and started a reference section. You can see how the ref tags create the citation numbers automatically.

In the article you say that he received a prize; was there a report in a newspaper or organization journal about the prize? If so, that would make a good reference. He seems to be very well known in this field, so maybe some other scientists have written about his work or he has been featured in a university magazine article. Good luck with this. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see a quality new editor recognized
Hi, Anne! I haven't been around much and am not able to be around enough to do much that is meaningful, but I did want to drop by and tell you that I am very happy to see you have been named editor of the week! It is a deserved award for you. You hit the ground running here and have not really ever stopped striving to make quality contributions to Wikipedia, and for that I say....Thanks and BRAVO!!!!!! Gtwfan52 (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello
I have supplied some documentation for my new entry Sip 'n Stroll. I've located websites that are promoting such events. What other type of documentation do you recommend to support the activation of this entry? Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yhtak2013 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Yhtak2013: The URLs that you added are all promotional items created by the organizers of the Sip 'n' Strolls. What's needed for confirmation are news reports, magazine articles, reviews, etc., written after the events to show that these events were noted by journalists and other professional writers, and/or published articles written about the organizations by these same independent writers.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Arab Film Festivals
Hello Anne, I saw you are in charge of reviewing the AfC process of my student Hibba Itani's article 'Arab Film Festivals in the Middle East'. Since the article deals with Arab Film Festivals abroad too, I suggest to simply call the article 'Arab Film Festivals'. If you need any more info please contact me. Thank you, Robert Kluijver (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 05:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Have re-submitted article for review
Have resubmitted my article on the "City of Healing" project in Jordan. I added 3 references which I hope will be sufficient. Thank you for your time and expertise in reviewing my article, it is appreciated. voxclamantis 13:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voxclamintis (talk • contribs)

Dear Voxclamintis: Unfortunately, one of the references that you have added to South Asian Building magazine is actually the source of most of the text in this article, which is a copyright violation, and the article will be deleted. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept text that has been copied from published sources. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Faculty of Law, Oxford, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Regius Professor of Civil Law and Sir Frederick Pollock (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) 00:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

(1) Thank you for your work, and (2) a "pirate" or "clone" WP website publishing pending submissions?
Hi Anne. (1)I want to thank you for your work in cleaning up the ref's and for having added two new references. I really appreciate that. (2) Are you aware that there seems to be a sort of "pirate" or "clone" website apparently directed toward a Japanese language audience that is publishing my article? You can see it here: http://wpedia.goo.ne.jp/enwiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sue_draheim That website apparently also gives access to all other pending articles as well: http://wpedia.goo.ne.jp/enwiki/Category:Pending_AfC_submissions. Thanks again for all your work. Akhooha (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * We're aware of that mirror site, and since all Wikipedia contributions, including drafts, are (supposed to be) freely licensed, there's nothing wrong with that, nor is there anything we can do about it (except that the mirror takes a rather cavalierly view of itself mentioning that the content is freely licensed). Huon (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Request review at Ziquejie Rice Terrace
Dear Anne,

Thanks for your comment and suggestion on my article, so now I have added the reference for it, can you review it again, if there is still any problem, please feel free to let me know, I will try my best to make it better! Thank you.

kate (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Anne
Hey Anne,

The references in the Sanicola article are there to confirm the statements that the songs have charted. I was advised to do that by Davidwr. Is that cool? 173.52.117.156 (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.117.156 (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Re City of Healing Article rejection
I realized why the copyright issue came up, somehow as the "City of Healing" article which appears in South East Asia Building 2010 originated in my office (DeWolff Partnership Architects) I have never felt any qualms about reproducing it, excerpting or transmitting. I realize now, because it was published by the Southeast Asia Building magazine, the possible copyright problem of downloading the PDF though my included reference link. I am certain the publisher gave us permission to redistribute-after all we wrote it! I have extensive first hand experience on this (KHIBC) project at DeWolff from 2005 to the present and am writing a new article in my own words with new content. References as before with Southeast Asia Building Mag. footnote. Will resubmit asap. voxclamantis 21:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voxclamintis (talk • contribs)

Dear voxclamantis: I am glad that you are going to rewrite the article. Even if you had written the other text yourself as a representative of your company, I believe that the copyright would lie with the company. Wikipedia has a policy that all of its editors must be individuals, not companies or company representatives, so that a neutral point of view can be maintained in the articles. Please be sure to find other independent sources to add to your article, because if the text of the magazine article was a press release from a company connected with the subject, it is a very weak source. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Article for creation review
I would like to thank you for your helpful suggestions and hope that I have been able to incorporate them into the article I am trying to resubmit for review. This is the first time I have attempted to submit an article on Wikipedia and I know I did not properly make use of the helpful tips and suggestion prior to my attempts. I am not able to locate a resubmit button however, and hoped that perhaps you might assist me with a further review and possible acceptance of my article. Thank you for your consideration. The links is as follows http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/KGCS-22_Joplin,_Missouri_Southern_State_University

Rjfjelstad (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Robin Fjelstad

Dear Rjfjelstad: You seem to have found a bug in the submission process. I asked one of the tech people to fix your page so that you can resubmit. I'm sure they'll fix this up quickly. Sorry, I don't have time to do reviewing today; I'm in the middle of something else, but now that it's submitted another editor will see it. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Preferred reference/footnote style for URLs --- semi-hidden with [ ..... ] or exposed?
Hi Anne, What's the preferred reference/footnote style for URLs --- hiding them in between brackets or leaving them exposed and instantly readable? Thanks for your help. Akhooha (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * With some very rare exceptions where the URL itself is the information we care about (such as company websites listed in the in company infobox, see for example the "apple.com" link at Apple Inc.) it's always better to "hide" it and instead to give a description of what the linked website is. In particular, we have the cite web template for website references that takes as parameters not just the URL but also the title, the access date and so on, and will format all that nicely while "hiding" the URL. See also WP:Referencing for beginners. Huon (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There, you have an answer from an expert. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 04:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks to you both for such quick replies! Akhooha (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Your AfC proposal
Hello,

I just wanted to inform you that I have done some formatting changes on the talk page of your AfC proposal. I have also removed one sign of yours from there (which I think may have been misplaced, but could be a signature). Please feel free to put it back if it was indeed a Support vote.

Also, feel free to revert any changes you think are unnecessary. You may also want to look into the RfC process to gather more discussion.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC) [Please post a Talkback if you reply to me]

Thanks, The OriginalSoni, I guess you've done this before. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have added the discussion for RfC so everyone can comment on it. I have also prepared an alternative description heading for you should you wish to use it in your proposal. Feel free to use any parts of it in your original text.


 * This is a proposed change to the current AfC structure to minimize the large number of articles which would be otherwise rejected almost immediately. The proposed mechanism involves a possible pop-up to ask the user to confirm their inclusion of citations. This would discourage such users from submitting the article, but add citations before submitting instead. Any editor who clicks on "YES" without actually reading repeatedly could then be warned/picked out for special attention. All changes, discussion and comments are to be added to User talk:Anne Delong/AfcBox.


 * TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. I was unaware of Rfc. Your description made me realize that maybe expecting citations from first time submitters may be expecting too much, and so I added a comment that maybe references in some form or other might be acceptable, since if we set the bar too high we may lose editors. I didn't have any trouble with citations myself when I was a new submitter, but I had the advantage of having had to write many articles and essays throughout my life.

I have revised my description to be a little more clear. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Justice Action article
Good morning Anne,

I logged in today to find my article, Justice Action, had been deleted by another use because of reasons of deliberate copyright infringement.

This makes me very sad as I didn't have a final draft saved of what I had written outside of what I submitted here and now I must work on an old draft if I am to resubmit my article. It's also frustrating because my article was approved only a week ago, for it to be approved and then deleted so quickly without offering me any help to improve it first is very frustrating and is a big turn off to this whole process; I feel like I'm wasting my time here.

The person deleted it saying it infringed copyright as content was similar to the justiceaction.org website. I did use content from the site as a basis for what I had written but I thought I had referenced it properly, as in some parts I paraphrased their 'about' page and put some quotes in. Other content I wrote just myself. Perhaps I should have looked over it more before submitting it for review, but I certainly did not infringe any copyright deliberately, but rather through my own error. Why I wasn't given an opportunity to improve the text, add necessary references or just remove bits that were too similar to justiceaction's content I'm not sure.

I will now be resubmitting the article from scratch which is very frustrating as I was really happy with how the other version ended up, and took me a considerable amount of time as I struggle with wikipedia's formatting/code etc.

Is there any way I can recover my article if it has been deleted?

Thanks for your help.

Oceanlovejustice (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC) -David 23:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Oceanlovejustice:

It seems that Black Kite is the administrator who discovered the copyright problems and deleted the article. You can leave a message on this administrator's talk page, and ask for the text to be sent to your e-mail address. That way you can change it into your own words before bringing it back to Wikipedia, and you won't have to redo the references, etc. be sure to give the complete name of the page Justice Action (Australia). Please don't change just a few words; an encyclopedia article should be written from the point of view of a person not connected at all with the organization. I hope this helps. By the way, there is a special forum for new users the Teahouse, which I found helpful when I first started. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * (Additional comment from talk page stalker) Oceanjusticelove, we take our copyright infringement very seriously. So even if a single line appears to be a direct copy of somewhere else whose copyright may not be ours, we have to remove it immediately. I suggest that you ask the admin for your article, and rewrite it "completely". Please make sure not a single line will be the same as the previous page, and only then bring it back to Wikipedia. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Landlet
I've corrected the link you posted on their page - there's a space in front of the L which made it a redlink. Took me a bit to work out why I couldn't get to the page. Apart from that, I've deleted their userpage and blocked them for spamusername. Peridon (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And now deleted the AfC page as a copyvio... Peridon (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Peridon:

It seems that I was the one who accidentally added the space. I'm not sure how I managed to do this. However, I used the script to decline the page, so why didn't it replicate the page name? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't know you could start a title with a space anyway. I wondered whether or not to move it, but decided against as it obviously wasn't going to be around for long. I wouldn't worry about it. Peridon (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your feed-back on my proposed article about Mohamed Sahnoun. I'll try to follow your suggestions. Sbrass (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Translating
Hello Anne,

On April 17th, I tried to create a new article called Econocom. I wanted to create a translation of the corresponding article in the French Wikipdia, but the submission has been declined. Do I have to translate the article myself ?

Regards,

Jean-Marc Vidal — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMPVID (talk • contribs) 15:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Jean-Marc: If I understand you correctly, you submitted an article that was not in English to the English Wikipedia. All of the articles in the English Wikipedia are in English. However, there are volunteers who speak both English and French, and you may be able to interest one of them in translating an article. To find out how, read Translation. However, because these are other volunteer editors like you, there may be a long wait because there are always more articles needing to be translated than there are willing minds to do the work. If you have the ability and time to do the translation, please do it yourself. If the translation isn't perfect, others who read it will make corrections.

I would like suggest that you also visit the Teahouse, which is a great place to have questions like this one answered. Asking one editor might not work if that person happens to be busy or away. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

References for Tucker Hollingsworth
Anne Delong -- Thanks for the reference cleanup. In support of FoCuSandLeArN's comments I added two more independent curatorial essays. Do you think that's enough and that they're uploaded correctly? My first article on Wiki and I'm definitely looking forward to contributing more once I get a sense of code down. Thanks again for your help. Plett bay (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Plett bay:

I took another look at your submission and I noticed that you had some citations that weren't showing up because there was no "reflist" template, so I added one for you. I don't know anything about curatorial essays. Are they published somewhere? in an exhibition pamphlet perhaps? I will not be able to review your article right now (writing a 200 page syllabus), but there are many other reviewers looking at the Articles for Creation submissions. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Anne --

I looked up the curatorial essay -- they were published in exhibition catalogues and one of them will be published in Barrow Street's upcoming issue, edited by Peter Covino (University of Rhode Island).

Thanks for the help -- I'm going to work on submitting another article about camera "noise" -- my interest! 95.233.224.39 (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

many thanks . ..
I didn't even know you were editing my article (Lee H. Letts, sculptor) because I am still learning how to navigate Wikipedia---I thought little elves were making the improvements ;-) Thank you so much for your help! Marion Simons (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Marion Simons

Editing Chisenhale Gallery article
Dear Anne Delong, thank you very much for your comments. Additional references will be added to the draft article as you suggest. With many thanks, potato67--Potato67 (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Heads-up
Just discovered this bot, which I thought you might be interested in. Dunno why I noticed the bot just now; maybe it wasn't active before... FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN. Is this currently being used? I have never seen a message like that on any of the talk pages where I have myself left similar messages.

My problem with using a bot for this job is that there are too many different ways that a person could have added references and I feel that human judgement or serious AI is needed to determine if an article is really unreferenced. Someone could just write "I found an article about this in Scientific American called The Amazing Life of the Snail, in Volume 22, Issue 6". How would a bot find that? Nevertheless, in manual mode it might save time, since it may be quicker to tell the bot to send an e-mail than to write one yourself. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've seen about 3 of these messages today, so it seems to be working to some extent. I believe it detects whether users added ref tags. If they didn't, it leaves a thorough explanation on how to place them on their talk pages (and it's highlighted in green, so they can't miss it). FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight banner at Regina Martínez Pérez's article
Hi Anne, you added an undue weight banner at Regina Martínez Pérez but no specific concerns were left in the related Talk page. Can you explain at Talk:Regina Martínez Pérez, please? I'm willing to improve that page and your indications will be useful. Thank you!--QuimGil (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear QuimGil: When I read the article, I saw that about 80% of the article is about Ms. Matinez' death. The article hints at a very interesting life, but gives few details about it. I see that her birth date, place and education have been added to the infobox; that's a step in the right direction. I am left to wonder: did she marry and have any children? Did she begin writing about crime from the beginning, or did she write about other topics? Was she involved in any other activities besides journalism? Did she live in Xalapa during her whole career? Did she win any journalism awards? etc.

If you add a few more facts that are not about her death, then I will be happy to have you remove the "Undue weight" banner. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

afc
Keep up the good work-- your comments seem very much to the point. I just want to make sure you area ware of a very useful shortcut for really promotional articles--which is to simply nominate them for speedy deletion as promotional, G11. if there's no likelihood that a rewrite would have any promise of an article, it saves a good deal of trouble, for they will have to be removed sooner or later, and for promotional, sooner is better. There's no need to decline them first, or blank them,. I'm going to give some examples, which I will hold off on deleting for a few day, so you can see them :
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kneading Touch Massage
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/M Models and Talent Agency - Toronto  DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear DGG:

I agree that these two articles are promotional, and would be promptly deleted if they were in mainspace. However, I understand that criteria are different in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation. I have been following the Afc reviewing directions, and using the Afc reviewing script. Promotional language is not listed there as one of the reasons for deletion or blanking, and I believe that once articles are in the Wikipedia:talk area search engines do not index them, so the writers receive no free advertising there.

I would prefer to continue following the instructions as written. I understand that there is a move afoot to delete articles that haven't been improved after a time period, so these articles will go away eventually anyway. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * DGG, you have left a similar message on my talkpage, so I thought I'd be innovative and respond here since Anne has already said what I was going to. Totally agree with the need to quickly remove promotional material from mainspace, however I tended to follow the approach Anne has outlined above for AFC and per the reviewing directions only nominate articles which are defamatory or similar.  Also, if the goal of AFC is to offer a relatively gentle introduction and coaching in the ways of writing for wikipedia, then aggressive deletions is perhaps a bit counterproductive.  Nonetheless, I'm happy to accept your suggestions if this is a widespread and accepted practice, however I do feel that it should be raised in discussion at project AFC and officially included as part of the reviewing directions if so - would this be reasonable for us to continue this discussion there? All the best, --nonsense ferret  13:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The policy is that promotional material is deleted wherever it appears in WP: The G11 criterion applies throughout WP. That the AfC instructions ignore this is one of the many things wrong with the process. but it doesn't supersede deletion policy. . The current discussion of using speedys for old afcs is at WT:CSD. If you want to raise the question of whether G11 applies to new afcs also, ask there. In fact, I will start the discussion DGG ( talk ) 14:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That's fine. It's better if you start the discussion, since you have a definite opinion.  If others agree with you, maybe they'll add a new option in the script, or at least a new "quickfail" item in the instructions.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Since I feel that this is more a discussion about what the reviewer should do as a matter of course than whether the criteria apply, and therefore really concerning changing the reviewing instructions, it would be better to discuss at AFC board, therefore I have opened at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation - I hope this makes sense. --nonsense ferret 15:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The reviewers will do what they please. just like they usually do; about half of submissions are reviewed wrongly, and the work flow is indecipherable. Fortunately, nothing about the project is policy, so the rest of us will cope with whatever nonsense they do there according to actual policy. I will use G11 according to WP:Deletion policy,as discussed at WT:CSD. After we confirm (or modify) the applicability of policy there, then they can adjust their instructions, and if you have an opinion on that, you might want to join the policy discussion where it will take place.   I think it wrong to split discussions, and will make one my rare visits to the AfC talk p. to say so.  DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I just now nominated the M Models article for CSD as G11. Another admin will judge. I have not yet decided what if anything to do about the other.  DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just as well. I looked up some information about this company, and it seems that if they are notable it wouldn't be for the information in the article. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

twinkle comment

 * Hey anne,
 * This is totally unrelated but I just wanted to check. Do you have Twinkle enabled? Or proveit? I find both of them very useful in getting things done. If you havent, then enable them already. If you have, then nevermind.
 * TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have Twinkle, and I use the tagging and deletion features quite a bit, although not so much in Afc. Thanks anyway. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for Closure

 * Hello,
 * I think it might be time to move on with/finalize the details of your RfC on AfC. I suggest you go to WP:ANRFC for requesting closure. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was wondering what to do next. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Unison RTOS Article
Hi, Anne! I was looking for additional articles for rathet long time - but unfortunately it is rather difficult. The issue is that companies are secretive about implementation. The reason is simple, they don't want competitors copying their successful approaches. I have found few more links - but they are connected with RoweBots Inc.

Could you please advise the next steps about that article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ola.solonenko (talk • contribs) 12:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Ola:

More proprietary information about implementation is not what is needed to make this article successful. What's needed are articles written by industry experts or journalists acknowledging the product and its uses. Here's one: http://mil-embedded.com/news-id/?28251.

I think this one looks pretty independent: http://www.digikey.com/us/en/techzone/microcontroller/resources/articles/expanding-os-choices.html

Here are two more, but these may be press releases; maybe you will know:

http://citizenwire.com/2011/10/11/ctw3865_085922.php

http://enewschannels.com/2013/03/17/enc18147_210001.php

Part of the problem is that Ms Rowe has sent out so many press releases about her products that it wasn't necessary for many journalists to write much themselves! Anyway, see if you can add citations to any of the above web sites next to some of the facts in your Unison article. When you are done, click in the pink box (where it says "click here") to resubmit the article. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Banjo Article
As regards your change to the begining of the Banjo Article, yes, thank you -- that's exactly the change I would have put in, had I been able to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

James Hill
Thanks for your contributions on James Hill! I had the honor of taking a workshop with him a couple weeks ago. What an amazing musician! I was really surprised that there wasn't a page for him here! Aggie80 11:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggie80 (talk • contribs)

Thank You!
Man I want to thank you for the changes you made to the Minnie Stevens Piper article. I'm very nervous since this is my first submission. Doing this "right" seems so daunting. In the last five years or so Wikipedia has undergone some massive shifts in terms of the rise in the quality of submissions and this particular one is huge for Texans, thus I wanted to "do it right". The changes you made were so much appreciated.

I am originally from Michigan and my grandmother's people came from up in Grey County, Ontario and I see you too do genealogy. I thought that was very cool. I also love Bluegrass. I think your submissions are really great - I looked at some and you're a skilled writer in addition to being a musician.

Once again thank you for all your help. Very much appreciated. If there's ever anything I can do to return the favor please let me know - warmest regards - Kevin Handy - newbie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfwenigma (talk • contribs) 19:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Kevin: Yes, Wikipedia is trying to keep up its standards, because people have come to rely on it so much. As a genealogist, I have come to realize that Wikipedia really can't be used as a venue to publish genealogies. When someone writes a book about their family, they usually include a page about each person, no matter what that person's life was like. Wikipedia, on the other hand, has a policy that only people who have been extensively written about for their own accomplishments or involvement in bringing about newsworthy events get their own articles. Others are mentioned in articles of other people or events. For example, a person could be married to a famous actor, or be the parent of a great writer, or be descended from the King of France, but this won't lead to an article about that person, only a mention in the article about the famous person. If a person died in a shipwreck, for example, he or she would be mentioned on the article about the shipwreck.

I am mentioning this because some of your article seems more genealogical than encyclopedic. First ask yourself, what aspects of Minnie Piper's life have been written about in published works not by relatives? Well, there seems to be her creative works, her land controversy and her charitable foundation. You've added information about various relatives and inlaws, without supporting sources, and these should only be there if they had a direct connection to these notable aspects of her life. It would be better to leave out some of this and concentrate on finding written sources about her personal activities. The sources don't have to be on line; old newspaper clippings are okay as long as you know what newspaper and date they are from. You may have trouble getting your article accepted as is because (1) obituaries are usually written up by families and not from a neutral point of view and need further confirmation (2) the Operation Pied Piper article doesn't mention Minnie, and (3) several others just mention her in one sentence or less.

I am chairing a big conference for the Ontario Genealogical Society next weekend, so I'd better get back to work now.

Oh, by the way, please sign your posts by typing for "tildas" (~). Also, try visiting the WP:Teahouse; it's just for beginners.

If you like bluegrass, maybe you'd like to help out with some of the tasks on my bluegrass page at User:Anne Delong/Bluegrass Topics, or add your own items to my list. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Anne, Thanks for the advice. Perhaps you are right. The organization she founded has no page. And they give very little information about her. I felt that since she was so integral to Texas history. The obituary is used as a source, however, I also used confirming information from other sources. I hear what you're saying, however, sometimes people are important (for instance in Texas many faculty and students receive a Minnie Piper Stevens award) from the foundation. I confirmed much of the information from third party sources - some was not in the obituary but was in fact was from US government sources. I tried finding others and had difficulty. I called the San Antonio library but they couldn't seem to give me much. I'm not sure how much more supporting detail I could provide given what's available. The Operation Pied Piper article doesn't mention Minnie and I haven't been able to find a confirming article on the song she composed. Her grandson's article barley mentions her - and the Foundation mentions her only very briefly. I'm not sure what one should do in those cases. I think sometimes Wikipedia's rules are a bit too stringent. If a great deal is already published on a given topic what is the point of the Wiki?24.238.141.180 (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, sometimes there is a lot of information, but also a lot of junk to look through, whereas if you look to Wikipedia you will find substantial information instead of puffery and opinion. However, don't give up.  If the reviewers turn you down, just keep the draft article and you may come across some info later.  Or, change the focus of your article.  You say that many people receive these awards.  Maybe the article should be about the awards, who founded them, who decides how they are awarded, maybe notable winners, etc. Often college magazines report award winners, and sometimes local news.  Here's one that I found right away: http://www.utexas.edu/news/tag/minnie-stevens-piper-foundation/.  http://utsa.edu/facultyawards/awards/piper.html The the background on Minnie and her husband(s) could be a small part of the article.  Someone has even written a book about this award.  (http://books.google.ca/books?id=CYT1mQEACAAJ)

&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
I'm not interested in tagging Wikipedia articles for deletion. Articles on Wikipedia don't take up any of my resources, and it's not as if it were a printed encyclopedia and we were killing trees to edit and publish it - not that I'm a bleeding heart, tree-hugging liberal, 'cause I'm not. If Wikipedia Moderators are so stupid and misogynistic that they'd rather publish articles about raps entitled "Fuck It!" or lyrics such as "Fuck you, you 'ho'!" or movies entitled The Pink Pussy: Where Sin Lives than articles about a woman who has become the face of the Hawaiian hula on Google, and is one of the few women to have played the role of the Biblical Queen Jezebel in a feature length, live action move, so be it.William Mortensen Vaughan, U.S. Army Staff Sergeant (Retired) (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

KHIBC Article
I must confess at this point some confusion. Where is the copyright issue in my article? The text is all original. I have footnoted the publication referenced and linked to web pages otherwise. Please help. voxclamantis 16:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voxclamintis (talk • contribs)

Dear voxclamantis:

You have indeed removed the copyright issues. The editor who declined the article was concerned about other things that are likely easily fixed: a promotional point of view and lack of independent references. Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, which means that not only the pleasant things about a topic should be mentioned. That's easier to do if you are not closely connected with the topic, but it can still be done. I don't have time to look carefully just now (I have a meeting shortly), but I will look this over later in the day. (It is noon here in Canada.) In the mean time, see if you can find news reports or magazine articles about the institute that are not written by those who helped to build or run it. Don't worry, this is an important institution. Wikipedia wants an article about this topic, and when the article is right it will be accepted. Also, for balance, if there were any concerns or difficult decisions during the development of the Institute, these should be included if they were written about in the media. (For example, where to put it or environmental concerns, or who should be in charge, or what company to use to build it, etc., etc.). I will write again when I have more time. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

PART II: Well, I have had time to read over the article carefully, and I am surprised to find that it isn't really about the cancer centre at all, but more a promotional piece about the architectural firm that designed it. No wonder it was declined! I can't even tell from the article if the centre is in operation or not. I have tried to add a couple of balancing facts, but I don't know enough to do a good job, and nor do I have time right now to do the proper research. In order to be accepted, this article can be developed in two ways: (1) Change the title of the article to "The design and construction of the King Hussein Institute for Biotechnology and Cancer" and then find at least four or five news articles which are not press releases about the topic to use as references, or (2) Cut down the section about the architectural company by about 2/3, leaving out information intended to promote the people involved, and add instead some paragraphs about the centre's opening, current operation and activities,research, etc., again with news or health magazine articles to back up the information. I am sorry that I may have mislead you in saying that the article would be easy to fix; I should have waited until I had more time to read it carefully before replying. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

French Speaking people
Do you know anyone in Ontario or Canada that speaks French? Ashbeckjonathan 19:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably, why do you ask? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

A quick reminder or two
Hello,

I just wanted to point out that your AfC proposal was (finally) closed successfully, and there should be no more problems with implementation. I thought I should just ping you about that, just in case you missed it.

Secondly, it might be useful to "link" people's usernames while replying to them (like I can say T13 and he gets a ping to this page ;) [Nothing really important here T13. You can get back to work unless you can help in implementing the above AFC proposal]). That way, they get a notification for this message too, just in case they dont check their talk page (which many newcomers sometimes miss).

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I probably can help with it. I just need a little time to figure out the best way too accomplish the goal.  ;) Technical 13 (talk) 10:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Mohamed Sahnoun
I'm puzzled by your reply. I've added external references. Do you require still more? I thought that the ethos of Wikipedia was to help people simply and easily get something up on-line, and then let others correct and complete. I've put quite a lot of time and work into this piece. I'm not highly computer-skilled, and I'm close to giving up. Sbrass (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Sbrass: It was not I who declined your article this time, but another reviewer. I looked over your article and I see that you have added some references, but they weren't in a format that made them show up on your reference list, whereas the ones about Mr. Sahnoun's book were, so it made the article appear not to have independent references. I have reformatted them for you, although I've been short of time and the citation style is a little rough. You can see that the list of references is much longer now. I also created sections to make the information more readable.

There is one more thing that needs to be changed in this article before it can be accepted, and luckily it is not something that requires computer expertise. The article is written more as a tribute to Mohamed Sahnoun than as an encyclopedia article. Only the plain facts should be in the article, not opinions or accolades or promotion of a point of view or theory. The long sections of quotes from Mr. Sahnoun should be left out, as well as anything controversial or provocative unless you can prove it with a written reference. For example, you state that he was succeeding where others failed. This shouldn't be in the article unless you specify what exactly he was succeeding at, which reliable source said he was succeeding at it, and who had failed in this area before. It's probably easier just to remove the sentence.

I have had some experience at getting articles accepted. If you would like, I can edit it so that it meets the guidelines. If you don't like the result, you can go to the "View History" tab and undo it. Let me know if you want me to do this. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

List of Train Songs
Hi, Anne: I found your work through a post on the Tea Garden and wanted to let you know I was impressed by your efforts in writing articles on bluegrass and related subjects. My own passion of late has been the List of train songs. When I came upon this article about four years ago, it was a list borrowed (with permission) from another Internet site. Since then, I've vetted and added significantly to the article's songs, including listing composers and recording artists and adding wikilinks to songs/artists/composers and cross-references between "families" of songs.

The most time-consuming - and what I believe has been the most valuable - aspect of this has been the inclusion of citations, the subject of your Tea Garden inquiry. Previously, I had worked on the List of singer-songwriters. When someone posted a citations-needed template on the article, I was irritated by the thought. For one, a basic guideline for the article was notability, as determined by the requirement that an artist must have a wikilink to be included, in which case, a reader can simply link to an artist's article to determine whether she/he was in fact a singer-songwriter. My second objection was how time-consuming it would be to include a citation for every artist. However, my experience in sourcing train songs has proven first, the value of citations to readers in providing access to source materials and second, the value in forcing editors to become more knowledgeable on the subjects they are writing about.

My train song research has taken me to all corners of the musical globe. Along the way, I have learned about the development of genres, the histories of publishing and recording, the backgrounds of artists from the 1800s through the present, and so forth. As for readers, the train song article, in my opinion, has become a gateway to the scholarship on the subject. In addition, the article's readership has grown from 3,000 or so readers monthly to 15-20,000.

I thought I'd share these thoughts with you regarding the articles you have been working on, particularly the lists. Also, given your musical knowledge and WP experience, I would appreciate your feedback on how the train song article is shaping up, including any ideas for improving it. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Anne: Thanks for the compliments on the List of Train Songs. Both "All the Good Times Are Past and Gone" and "Train Is A-Comin'" are traditional. The first was recorded by Ralph Stanley, among others. The second has probably been done by even more artists, most notably, Pete Seeger and Peggy Seeger. I think they're great "finds." Consider them added. Allreet (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you - Mohamed Sahnoun
Thanks for your message. I've tried a little more editing, and adding references. If this isn't adequate, of course I'm very happy for you to have a go.

PS. I'm struggling with finding how to reply to your message... I hope that this reaches you.

Sbrass (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC) 

Disambiguation link notification for May 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Runaway Bunny (musical composition), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tubby the Tuba and Shawn King (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) 11:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Stephanie Calmerson
Anne

Good afternoon, I am creating the page for Stephanie Calmenson - I am ask to ask reliable sources, yet they are already in the article. Is there a specific area where they should be?

Kind regards, Carmen gonzalez (Harry&#38;rosie (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC))

Dear Carmen: The sources have to be independent; that means not directly connected with Stephanie Calmenson. Videos of her reading her books or talking about them, Facebook pages created by her or by her publisher, profiles from organizations to which she belongs, etc., are not independent. What's needed are book reviews by other professional reviewers, news articles (not press releases) about her books or activities written by journalists, etc. Here's an example: Growing Up with Literature and Well Read Reviews and Midwest Book Review  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=558465666 your edit] to DataMotion, Inc. may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Babillon Tower
Hello Anne,

I just created Babillon Tower page, you asked for source like press,news etc.

So I added it and hope it will be enough, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielDoinitsin (talk • contribs) 23:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC) (fixed)&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 6
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.


 * Babillon Tower (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Georgia


 * William Rush (actor) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Shameless

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC) (fixed)&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Dan Illouz
Dear Anne I have corrected the page of Dan Illouz adding third party sources. Let me know if anything else needs to be done. Thank you. El — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.74.32 (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I have made a few changes, such as changing the "Dan"s to the last name as per Wikipedia convention.

The sources you added were good ones. I have moved the newspaper sources about treaties to the reference section, but you will have to fill in the detail of what papers they were, etc., since I can't read them.

Because your subject is a living person involved in controversial work, this article needs more references than most, because once it is in the encyclopedia its facts are likely to be challenged. The section about philosophy is mostly opinion and should either be backed up by citations or just left out.

There's a little of what we at Wikipedia call "puffery" here, too. The section about the 70.000 volunteers needs to be reworded. The text makes it sound as though every one of them was under his supervision out doing his bidding. Maybe this is the case, but the references don't support this. A more likely situation is that Mr. Illouz set up a facebook group, and 70,000 people (rather than volunteers), joined the group.

Once these changes have been made, I think the article will pass. Remember, though, that other Wikipedia editors around the world will then change and add to it as they see fit. I'm sure that someone add the criticism of the video which is mentioned in one of the news articles. You might want to include this yourself rather than have someone else choose the wording. Then please submit the article again.

&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Anne Seward
You've nominated Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anne Seward for speedy deletion on the basis of being a copyright violation because it... copies from 1911encyclopaedia.org.

1911 Encyclopedia is the Britannica edition from 1911. It's not a copyright violation, because it is out of copyright. In fact, large chunks of Wikipedia were taken from the 1911 Britannica. I've undone your AfC decline and speedy delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Tom Morris: I checked the web site that was given as a reference before declining, and it specifically says that all text is copyright. Are you sure that it is okay? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the website is wrong. They can assert that they own the 1911 Britannica encyclopedia... but they don't. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/t of number-one hits of 2013 (Austria)
Did you have a moment when creating Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/t of number-one hits of 2013 (Austria)? :-P

I just noticed a bunch of weird redirects and a double redirect. I've fixed them for you. :) Pol430 talk to me  16:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't pay attention to the strange title when I accepted the article. Also, the Accept script didn't put the page in mainspace as expected, and when I tried to move it I chose the wrong space from the list. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Hasteur (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

hector rosales
hello, just a quick fact. You commented on my page that I had created about Hector Rosales, and asked me to change the links for the spanish newspaper into references. I do not believe i need to do that because I only put those websites in there as "extras" to get more information about Hector Rosales if the reader wanted more information. Please message back and tell me if that answers what you were trying to say about my article! ((:

-pepetink — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepetink (talk • contribs) 15:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Pepetink:

Of course you are free to ignore my advice. I am just another Wikipedia editor like you. However, your assertion that the Spanish newspaper references are extras leads me to think that you believe that the three references which are citations are sufficient for the article to be accepted. I can tell you that this is not the case. The first and third are from Mr. Rosales' own web site, which can't be considered an independent source, and the second clearly states at the bottom that it is text taken from Wikipedia, which can't be used to verify itself. Not being able to speak Spanish, I can give no opinion about whether the sources in Spanish will be considered reliable independent sources. You'll have to wait for a Spanish-speaking reviewer. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello there! After reviewing the article in question: it doesn't fulfill notability guidelines, and as such won't be accepted unless independent and reliable sources are provided. Given this is a biography, any special attention needs to be given to verifiability. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I understand now about the notability requirements, thanks to FoCuSandLeArN's comment. So, anytime you write an article about a living individual, you cannot use their own written information as a source??? Let me just help you to understand where I am coming from.....I am a 17 year old high school student who was given an assignment to write an article on a person taken from Wikipedia's own "Authors who have no articles written about them" page. My entire class had to choose one author to write about. But, right from the beginning, we were all in the dark, as the teacher basically just threw the assignment at us and told us to go to Wikipedia Wizard. That is ALL he told us. We all had absolutely no idea how or where to begin, what the "notability" rule was about, how to cite references, what inline citations were or how to note them, etc., etc., etc...... We were completely on our own, with no help from him, whatsoever, to help us navigate through the incredible amount of info we had to wade through, and we were on our own to try to make sense of the entire research, formatting and editing process! To be honest, I got an A+ on the project, but I did not understand any of the technical aspects of what I did!! The language on the Wiki help sites was beyond my understanding, for the most part....which probably explains why I couldn't make sense of the "notability" requirement. I actually believed that going to the living individual would provide THE best source of information, as they would be telling you about their lives and works, themselves!

There were two other problems for me, in particular, with this assignment.....1) There were just three sources of information to be found, anywhere, on the web, relating to Rosales. How could I have got more information on him???? Apart from one or two magazine articles written about him in Spanish, there was literally no information on Rosales! Even the Spanish language book reviews had to be translated and even then, the information given related to his works, not to the man himself; our assignment was to write about the author, not just about this works. 2) Wikipedia's list of "authors who have no articles written about them" page is out of date. I actually began research on 23 different authors from that list before I came upon information that directly led me to a written and published Wikipedia article on that particular author.

As an experienced editor, if you were given my assignment, how would you have approached it, and where on earth would you go for information on Rosales??

Thank you:)

Pepetink (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC) pepetink
 * Dear Pepetink: I am sorry not to have responded sooner; I have been away from the Internet this weekend.  About having to go through many names before finding one to write about:  Sometimes there's a reason that there is no article about a certain person.  Anyone can add to the list of articles wanted, and sometimes people add names of people that are not well known.


 * Since you have chosen a Spanish-speaking person to write about, I presume that you can speak Spanish, and can understand the newspaper articles that you found. You will be able to tell if a particular article backs up certain facts that are in the article you wrote.  If so, add a citation next to that section of the text, and you are one step toward showing "notability", which basically means that the person has been written about in the media or in books, etc. (If not, you can try "Google translate" The interview in the Journal of Poetry could also contain facts, particularly anything written by the interview rather than spoken by the poet.


 * About using the person's own work as a source: You can't use that material to show "notability, since that means that others are writing about the person.  However, you can use the person's own work for other information; for example, if the person has written and published a book of poetry, you can make a reference to the book to confirm in your article the name of the book, the publisher, and other facts like that.


 * If you have been using search engines only to find your information, be aware that a lot of information which is available on the internet is not available to search engines because it is in databases. If you can find a newspaper or magazine in the right area where Mr. Rosales may be known, you can go to the newspaper website and see if you can search past issues.  If you find a reference in a book, but the book is not on line, you can see if your local library can get it in on Interlibrary Loan.  You can use worldcat.org to see if a library near you has a copy.


 * Wikipedia has Wikiprojects that may help. There's Wikiproject Uruguay and Wikiproject poetry, for example.  You could leave messages asking for help on the talk pages. You could ask where they think information could be found. This may or may not work, depending on who happens to read the posts.  That's all I can think of for now.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Spherical Rolling Joints
Hello Anne, Thank you for the review.

I just have a question about the requested sources (newspaper, journal ect.)

I am looking for sources to support technical specification on this mechanism - I am not sure technical specification will be supported anywhere other than the manufacturer's literature. Would it be better to omit specifics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdankowych (talk • contribs) 20:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Mdankowych: An important part of an article about "spherical rolling joints" is a description that is detailed enough so that the reader can tell the difference between a spherical rolling joint and another type of joint.  To that extent specifications are useful.  However, I presume that these joints can be different sizes and be composed of slightly different materials, etc., particularly if they are made by different companies or are for different intended uses.  You won't want to be so specific in your specifications that it seems that only one particular product is an SRJ - that makes the article look like advertising.

There's no reason not to include the spec sheets. They have good diagrams and interesting information. However, there are other aspects of this topic that need to be covered by independent (not company) sources. Remember that most of your readers will not be engineers. If this is a well-known type of joint, then in tech journals or industry magazines there must be articles pointing out its strengths and weaknesses, its preferred uses, how it came to be developed and by whom, etc. A quick check on the internet using Google indicates that the SRJs are used for laser positioning devices, in artificial limbs, and race cars. Adding that type of information and using non-company sources will make the article more acceptable and also more interesting overall. I hope this helps. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response - I will work with this feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdankowych (talk • contribs) 14:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Initiative Science
Dear Anne Delong,

I would like to recreate the IS wikipedia page. Can you give me some advices how to make it successfully? I work for the company, and I used the website and other Program Guides what our Organization uses all the time. I may not understand the problem with the pictures, so it would be very useful and a huge help from you if you give me some advices. Thank you, Stefi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancs.stefani (talk • contribs) 13:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Stefi: According to your list of contributions, you are a new user and this is your first edit.  Did you create the page under another name, or did someone else create it? The article was deleted two months ago and I have worked on hundreds of articles since, so I no longer remember anything about it.  However, I can give you some general advice base on Wikipedia policy.  Wikipedia is not intended to be an advertising venue, and in general when employees of a company make an article it comes out sounding very promotional.  It's difficult to see your own company from an unbiased perspective.  If you plan to take on this task you will have to keep a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

Prepared material from your company website and program guides can't be used for copyright reasons. The article must be written in your own words, because you must write it as Wikipedia editor, not a company representative. You should realize that after you have submitted it any Wikipedia editor in the world is free to change and add to it. Also, you must add references to independent reliable sources such as news reports, magazine articles, product reviews, etc., not written by your company.

About the photos: I believe that the company logo can be used on the web site under fair use policies, since it represents the company. Any other images should be donated by their creators or copyright holders to Wikimedia Commons at http://commons.wikimedia.org/‎. They will then be freely licensed, and anyone in the world can use them, including you. If you have images but you don't hold the copyright, then please don't put these on the page.

To maximize your chances of having the article be accepted, keep it factual, only writing information that can be verified independently, and don't fill it with links to web sites.

I hope this helps. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

submitted draft article modified as you requested
Dear Miss Delong, As you requested, we have entered appropriate references alongwith the link to Eurolib website and to our members.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Eurolib Thank you in advance to endorse the article Liutprando (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Liutprando:

The article does not appear to have been changed since I replied to your last message in April, when I reported that I had blanked out several sections of this article because they used copyright text from the Eurolib web site. For legal reasons of which librarians are all aware, Wikipedia can't accept text that has been published elsewhere. Please click on the link that you provided above and you will see what I mean. Each editor contributes as an individual, not as a representative of any organization, and so the editor must write the text personally. The references that you provided will be fine when the text has been reworded, and when the comment brackets are removed they will show up again. Until these copyright problems are gone, the article cannot be added to the encyclopedia. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

 * Erm, Anne, I think you sent the talkback to the wrong person. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

TH host
Dear Anne Delong, thank you for volunteering as a host at the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a community of people working together to make knowledge free. You are an important part of that effort! By joining as a Host, you are helping new users get a hold of the ropes here at Wikipedia, and helping experienced users that just have a question about how something works. We appreciate your willingness to help!

Some links you may find helpful as a Host: Helpful scripts you can install to make Teahouse responding easier, templates to use, and the question forum. Technical 13 (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Rick DeLong name
My name is Rick DeLong and Wikipedia has told me that you denied my creation of a page due to my lack of credibility, I think. I have written two short stories available on Amazon.com, Smashwords.com, and a variety of other sites. I am involved in the marketing of my new book, "About Meghan," and I would like to upload information about myself and my books. I have contributed to Wikipedia and I understand that we need facts and not speculation. Any paperwork or information you need, I can readily provide. Anything I can do, just let me know. I would really like to see my name on this page, not only as a contributor, but also as an author. Thank you. Rick DeLong Habanerorick (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Rick: I thought that the comment I added at the top of the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rick DeLong page was pretty clear, but maybe you didn't see it. All articles in Wikipedia, and especially those about living people, have to be backed up by reliable independent sources. For an author, that means that information about their writing has to have been written by journalists or other professional authors and published in recognized newspapers, magazines, books, etc. Reviews which are not press releases, author profiles in literary magazines, news reports about the author or his work are all good. Several are needed, and material written by the author or his publisher doesn't count.

If an author is new or has not been written about in these types of publications, then according to Wikipedia policy there should not be an article about that person in Wikipedia yet. This is because it is an encyclopedia rather than a place to promote new products.

Authors usually make a point of saving press clippings, so you will know better than anyone else if these sources exist, and if so please add citations to them to the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rick DeLong article and then submit it again. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

page deleted
Hi Anne,

Thanks for your message. The page was deleted for its copyright content? Could you please specify so I don't make the same mistake again? Which part/info was considered copyright and why? I have put the references and respective links... also I have used wiki pages that already exist as a model, so I am not sure which part of the content is "wrong".

Thanks so much for your comments! Im new here so I am still trying to figure it out :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathykrier (talk • contribs) 07:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Cathykrier: You don't say in your posting which article you are talking about. Since Wikipedia has four million of these articles, can you please be more specific? What was the title of the article?

In general though, any text which has been previously published, such as on a web site or in a newspaper, etc., is considered copyright. Wikipedia editors all contribute as individuals, not as representatives of the people or places or companies that they are writing about, so the text must be written specifically for Wikipedia for legal reasons. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 09:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Cathykrier is talking about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cathy Krier which you declined as a copyvio.
 * Thanks for your message! The page you created, despite being referenced and linked to other wikipedia articles, was still a copyright violation.  Its content was almost identical to this website.  You can read more at Copyright violations and Copyrights.  Basically, any text needs to be your own writing and not found elsewhere.  Anne and I can point you to more information but any submission must be your own writing, not copied from elsewhere.  You may also want to read this page as well, as you seem to be the subject in question. ~  Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 14:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, User:Amorymeltzer, for stepping in to answer this question; I've been at a festival without Internet for several days. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead paragraph corrected on wiki page- ready for review/approval
Hi Anne, you reviewed my wiki page and left comments saying my wiki page didn't have a lead paragraph. It does now. Could you please take a look and aprove it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engelbertha_Krupp

Thanks

David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstrob (talk • contribs) 16:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Dstrob: It wasn't me that added the tag about having no lead paragraph to that article, but I agree that it has a lead paragraph now, so I have removed that particular tag. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Platform505
Hi there Anne - I am editing the Platform505 article again, using your suggestions - this is my first wiki article from scratch, but I am beginning to get it!! Thanks - Melanie AKA Icecream53 (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to here it, Icecream53, go for it! Don't forget the independent, reliable sources  such as news reports, magazine articles, reviews, etc.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Social Commerce
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/social commerce

Dear Budur alzahrani: For some reason your whole article has been copied onto my talk page. I have deleted the text and instead put a link to the page that you are developing. You didn't leave me any message, so I am guessing that you would like an opinion about your article. Here goes: To start with, there is already an article in Wikipedia called Social commerce. The encyclopedia doesn't need two articles on the same topic. On the other hand, the information and sources you have gathered can be a valuable contribution if you combine them with the information in the existing article. Just read over the existing article and see where you can improve it. Don't change parts that are already well covered unless you can add something significant or a new reference

See how the editors of the Social commerce article have inserted the sources right in to the paragraphs, and how Wikipedia then adds the citation numbers and creates the reference list at the bottom.

Also see how each paragraph is not indented, but instead has a blank line to separate it from the next paragraph. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 04:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

rewards
i want rewards like u. what shud i can do?Sonia Sevilla (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Sonia Sevilla: Well, when I was a new editor I started adding to pages and making my own articles, and very often I didn't know how to do things, so I asked a lot of questions about specific problems at the Teahouse. That's how I got my first badge - the "Great Question" badge.  I was always careful to put plenty of independent sources, such as news reports, magazine articles, chapters in books, etc., in my articles, and that's how I got the "New editor on the right path" badge.  When you ask questions, either at the Teahouse or at the Help desk, other editors enjoy helping you and they can see that you are trying to learn and become a better editor. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback syntax
Hi Anne Delong I was wonder if you could share the syntax for linking a teahouse question in the talkback message you leave on an editor's Talk page. I am using. Thanks ''' Flat Out  let's discuss it  03:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, Flat Out. When I signed up as a Teahouse host, I was given the option of activating some scripts and CSS.  I did that, and now when I am on the Teahouse page I see a little TB symbol after each editor's name.  First I highlight and copy the title of the section.  Then I click on the TB and the script asks me to input the title.  I paste it in and press enter.  I never see the syntax.  It is quite helpful.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll have a look at those scripts. Cheers ''' Flat Out  let's discuss it  04:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know that I found the syntax to do this manually  - ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it  05:56, 18 June 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. 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! &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 06:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Rankersbo (talk)

Talkback
The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Page creation for Piotr Piecuch
Dear Anne,

Thank you for the insight on what needed to be done with my article about a living person (it definitely made it into a better article). I have made revisions with references to independent sources in which other authors or journalists discuss Prof. Piecuch and/or his work. When you have time, I look forward to hearing what you or another Wikipedia correspondent has to say about this page and hope it can be accepted. Jahansen (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)jahansen

CONTEXTUAL DATA MODELING
I have written an article for Wikipedia but now realize I can't submit it, for two reasons. One, I have a vested interest because I am the inventor of the patent referenced. Also, before I realized that, I had tried the Wizard and gave up. In a little over 3 months I'll be 90, and I simply can't handle it. So, I'm looking for someone to submit it, then I have a list of cognitive scientists, and others, who I will invite to critique/edit it. The article is at execware.com/cdm.pdf. Please let me know if you're willing to submit it. Thank you! Bob Listou rlistou@execware.com72.192.252.90 (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear 72.192.252.90: Are you really User:Rlistou and have forgotten to sign in? I am going to assume that you are.  I see that you have been trying to add a reference to your draft article to the "Visual analytics" article.  Since this is a draft, rather than a published article, it's not suitable as a reference until it's published.


 * Now, about your draft article PDF: I presume that the topic you would like to have in Wikipedia is "Contextual data modelling". Is this a term that you have made up yourself to describe your work?  Before a term can have an article in Wikipedia, it has to have been discussed and reported by several well-known reliable sources that are not connected to the originator of the term.  I see that one of the sources you have listed is your patent, and that is fine for its information value.  Do the other three references that you list talk specifically about the term "contextual data modelling"?
 * What you have written is an essay. It is more suitable for publication in a professional journal. When creating an 'essay', the author includes sources from which his or her original ideas are developed. However, an 'encyclopedia article' doesn't put forth ideas and develop arguments, but instead is a digest of what has been written about that topic in other published sources, which are then cited.  The article shouldn't have any premises, conclusions, etc., as an essay would have.


 * If you would like this topic in Wikipedia, here's what to do:
 * FIRST: Find several well-known independent sources that have written about "contextual data modelling". Computer science journal articles?  Business news outlets (not press releases like the ones in Business Week)? Software reviews? I wouldn't know where to look, but you may.
 * SECOND: Write a much simpler article such as this: Contextual data modelling is a mathematical process developed by _______ in (date) and incorporated by __________ in the development of ___________ software.  The purpose of CDM is _____________ and it is used in the following situations _________. Alternatives to CDM are ____________, but CDM is preferable in ____________ situations because ____________. (The article must be readable by an educated person who is not a mathematician or a computer scientist).  References (here put citations to the items you found written about CDM by outside authors all of the claims of usefulness, etc., should be backed up by the sources).   External links (here put a reference to the patent and to a company web site or other non-independent information source).
 * What I have written as your suggested article probably doesn't make sense because I do not understand your article as written, but I hope you can see the general form that article should take.
 * I know this is not what you were hoping to hear. Sorry! &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Anne, for your thoughtful and thorough response. I will re-direct my efforts accordingly. But let me answer your questions. Yes, CDM is a term I coined, in one of my 7 patents (last one Nov 2012). No, the 3 references don't cite CDM. they are published scholarly works that support CDM. Anne, I've been coming at this backwards! My goal was a Wiki article I could then ask cognitive scientists, and others, to critique. Now, following your guidance, I will simply send them my "essay". BTW, there is no alternative to CDM, only software using my patents enables CDM. But the rest of the article scenario you suggested is very helpful and I will keep your superb response for future use. Thank you very much, Bob Listou.Rlistou (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, Bob, good luck with your efforts to improve the world of data analysis. I have had some interest in this area at a simpler level in the past when I was developing computer aided instruction and had to analyze response patterns in order to direct the flow of the instruction. Also, my son Andrew Delong (http://www.psi.toronto.edu/~andrew/) is involved in data analysis in the field of computer vision with biological applications.  I hope that you will still make a Wikipedia article, but even if you don't, once your concept finds useful applications someone is bound to write about it and it will end up in the encyclopedia later.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

CatScan
Hi!

Here's an example of how I've been using CatScan 2:   I probably should have made it clear that I was using the rewrite, which probably created some of the confusion. Sorry about that!

That link I provided above fills in some of the fields with examples of how I've been using it.

For the categories, I've been using "Declined AfC submissions", and/or the decline-reason categories, in the example above I'm using one of the latter.

To get the articles that haven't been touched in six months (or twelve, but the example above uses six) I've been filling in the "Last change" field with the date six or twelve months ago.

Hope this helps! Drop me a note at my talk page, and/or an email, if I can explain further, I'm still on a work trip, but hope to be back at it soon. Thanks! --j⚛e deckertalk 18:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

AfC
Hi Anne. I apologise if I  appear to  be bombarding  you  with  a lot of questions about  AfC. Because I have been so  heavily  involved for several years on  other aspects of new articles and new users, I had too  much  on  my plate to  get  involved very  much  with the  AfC process. Now that I have bit more time my main  concerns are the quality  of AfC reviewing and the backlog, so  I'm  just  getting  up  to  speed. Thanks for all your helpful  answers :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's what the talk page is for. If I didn't have time to answer someone else would. I was working at the New Page Patrol for a while, and I can tell you that on the average the submissions we get at Afc are far more wild and woolly than the usual stuff over at NPP.  You really don't want some of those out in mainspace.  At least the editors you get there have read enough of the instructions to figure out how to create a new page.  Sometimes we have editors dumping their article text on the help pages, or on the reviewers' talk pages, and about one article in four is a copyright violation. It's amazing to me how many of these new editors get their act together and write a good article by the end of the process.   Our main problem is the backlog, and I guess that's a problem everywhere.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seeqnce, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Accelerator (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) 11:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Backup drive
Dear Excirial: I would like to take part in the backup drive taking place in a few days. I clicked on the backup drive tab, and was directed to your AfcBuddy page to sign up. However, I couldn't see anything about the July drive. Is this because I have to wait until July 1 to sign up? And by the way, thanks for making the AfcBuddy. I tried to list my own last time and it wasn't worth the time it took. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The lack of a header for the new drive was mostly caused by me not being aware there would be a new drive (The last two months i haven't exactly been the shining example of active editing). The header is up and ready for sign-ups now though. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 07:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Excirial.  I have signed up, I think.  Hopefully I will not be the only one!  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Britannia Mine Museum, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.