User talk:Anne Delong/Archive 9

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

Possible run for adminship?
I wanted to ask you whether or not I would pass an RfA. In a response to my comment that I probably wouldn't pass an RfA, EdJohnston said that maybe I could ask someone, so I decided I'd ask you. I've been here since December 2012, I'm a rollbacker, autopatroller, and reviewer here, and an admin on Wikidata. I've participated in RfA, NPP, AfD, and AfC; I've never been blocked, or warned, for anything; I've created over 250 articles, even though most of them are stubs; I have gotten 1 article promoted to GA (Mikkeli). The only real negative IMO is my edit count. Do you think I'd pass with 4,600? Thanks, :) -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 21:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Stalker comment (as one who has asked this same question elsewhere). You seem to have less than 5000 edits. That might be seen as "Not now". Also, be aware, I was told once that the very statement from one's self that "I probably wouldn't pass an RfA" may well be brought up on the nomination so you' need to be prepared to answer why you feel that way. Having not taken a closer look I can't really say more than that.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason I said that is because of my edit count. But the 5,000 mark is something I hope to achieve in the next month. Regards, -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 21:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, . I agree with Mark that your edit count is a little too low, and if I were you I wouldn't apply for adminship right away.  However, it seems to me that you are on a good path toward that goal.  I spent only a few minutes on this because I have to go to a meeting shortly, but here are a couple of suggestions that will increase your edit count and also help you get ready for an RfA:
 * You have created so many stubs and redirects that anyone checking would have a hard time picking out well developed articles from among them. Consider making a list of these well-developed articles on your user page so that you can point them out at an RfA to show that you can do more than create stubs.
 * I see that a lot of the stubs you have created are sort of formula pages, where you make one and then use it as a basis to create more of the same type. That's efficient.  I would take at least one of each of these, develop it to be a well-sourced if still short article, and add it to your list.  Then if editors point to the stubbiness of your articles you can point to these as examples of how the articles may look in the future.
 * Another thing that I would do would be to participate more on article and user talk pages - being helpful to other editors, discussing edits to articles, etc. (not with templates), to show that you can be a leader of less experienced editors


 * By the time you do these things, a few months will have passed, your edit count will be healthier, and at that time you will be better prepared for an RfA. I hope this advice will help you. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll do my best with expanding the stubs, but most of the settlement ones (they make up the majority of my creations) simply don't have much info about them out there, some I should be able to expand though. I'll try to hit 7,500 edits before I run. Thanks for your reply! :) -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 21:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not so much the number of edits, as the quality of the edits. Some editors create whole pages of text with one edit; others, like me, make a lot of typos and have to fix them up, so I end up with more edits for the same amount of work. I agree that some small locations don't have much information on line.  Don't forget that you can use books such as atlases and gazetteers, which may be available at a library, to add refs to geography stubs. Even old out-of-date ones will do to verify locations, nearby towns and rivers, etc. I wish you luck in your quest!  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * - I would anticipate somebody to cross-examine you about this AfD and this CSD, where consensus didn't go your way. You did handle both those situations pretty well, but I think you may need to show more activity in these areas to secure the mop. This is one of the problems with RfA - it's quite hard to prove that somebody understands policy well and can be trusted to be responsible with additional tools, but it's very easy to find where somebody did something that other editors disagree with. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The AfD, Articles for deletion/List of Ice Bucket Challenge participants, I later changed my vote from keep to neutral. And the AfD was very close, we had no idea what the outcome would be. About Robert Kay (librarian), it was improved after I tagged it and before the speedy-deletion was declined. When I tagged it the only "contents" were talk page WikiProject tags. Regards, -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 12:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Editors applying for adminship aren't expected to be perfect; when problems with previous edits are pointed out, you can explain what you learned from them and what you would do differently in the present and why. There's nothing wrong with being on the opposite side of consensus at AfD, as long as your opinion was backed up by policy - it's often a matter of collective judgement where valid arguments on both sides are weighed against each other. Admins should be prudent in the use of the deletion tools; I still sometimes tag pages rather than delete them myself so that a second set of eyes is involved. Showing willingness to be persuaded by policy-based arguments and to admit and correct errors is important for all editors, but even more so for admins. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , that's fine, you explained yourself. I don't have a perfect AfD score (out of nearly 500 AfDs I've called just over 80% correctly, and most of those I didn't is simply me disagreeing with other interpretations of policy), and I don't think anyone does, but RfA tends to just gague how well you respond. And as Anne says, two stage tagging for CSDs is absolutely essential, it's always good to get a second opinion on it. The other advice is to get a long standing and highly experienced admin (such as, who opposed Roger's RfA with very constructive comments why) to co-nominate you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought I heard someone use my name.... I think a bit more activity at the Help desk and/or Teahouse could be useful to show your ability to assist newbies and also demonstrate your knowlege of some of the technicalities. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice all. :) On a slightly unrelated comment about adminship, sometimes others make me feel that I need adminship so I can be respected, because IMO admins seem to talk down to me in discussions, twist things I say, and to some extent, make fun of me when I state that I disagree with what they say (it's really so I can feel like I can say something at AfD, not viewing adminship as a trophy.) Like this AfD, which I was involved in earlier today. Sometimes I'm discouraged from going to some areas (AfD in particular) of Wikipedia because of it. IMO Most admins that don't exhibit this behavior are newly appointed ones (usually). Do you think this is a problem, do admins not get respect from fellow admins, or is it all in my head? I apologize for going on about this, I just felt the need to get that out, even though I also feel that I'm ruining my chances of becoming an admin in the next year by saying it. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 20:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There are many well respected and longstanding editors who are not admins. Being an admin does lead to some respect, because it's suppose to mean that you are experienced and know about policies, etc., but that doesn't mean that not being an admin should lead to disrespect.  If other editors, admins or not, talk down to you, just make sure that you base your remarks on your understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially at AfD.  Not all editors are the diplomatic type, but if one or two decide to mouth off or write in a sneering fashion, that is their problem, not yours, and when it comes time to close the discussion only the arguments which are supported by policy and common sense will be taken into account.  Another approach when dealing with "know-it-alls" (who are not all admins by any means) is to ask specific questions.  Most people like to be asked for advice, and once the questions are answered and the policies and guidelines are pointed out, you may find that you have both learned something and that the controversy is gone. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Maintenance delete of Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, to make room for Draft:Biological Journal of the Linnean Society?
Hi again,

I'd like to publish Draft:Biological Journal of the Linnean Society -- there's a redirect page in mainspace now. Could you do a maintenance delete of Biological Journal of the Linnean Society? Or otherwise tell me what process I'm supposed to follow in cases like this? Thanks! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi . This is a tricky one, because the instructions specifically say that drafts with content in their history are not to be deleted.  The editor should have added to the existing article rather than starting a new one.  Is the editor still active?  If so, you could ask him/her to edit the mainspace page and just add the new content, since it's been deemed acceptable. Then the draft can be deleted under db-g6 (maintenance).  If there's no reply, I have another plan - I could move the existing redirect to Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (London), leaving the main title open for your move.  Then after it's created, the alternate title can be redirected to the new article.  The first way is cleaner, since the second leaves a redirect that's not really needed.  Would you mind trying it first?  The only other way is a content merge, which is even messier, with little attribution notes all over the place.

By the way, asking an admin is one way to deal with redirects that are in the way of page moves. The other way is to add  to the top of the page and wait. An admin will come along and deal with it. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Anne, Thanks for the tips. I've asked the editor; I'm not sure how active she is, as a new editor. I'll followup on this at some stage. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 17, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 14:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Chang Kong Cliff Road has been accepted
 Chang Kong Cliff Road, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! ~KvnG 16:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Anne_Delong help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Please comment on Template talk:Citation style
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Citation style. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Eisenkappel
Anne, after your excellent work on Musikkens Hus, I was wondering whether you would be interested in merging Bad Eisenkappel into Eisenkappel-Vellach. They are both about the same place.--Ipigott (talk) 06:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Ipigott. After reading the two pages, I get the impression that Eisenkappel and the various other nearby "populated places" were once separate villages and hamlets in the same township, and that in 1939 they were merged into one administrative unit.  I have seen a lot of discussions about places with long histories that no longer have separate administration, and the usual thing is to keep the page about the smaller unit, retain in it information and history up to the point of amalgamation (in this case 800 years or so), add a note about the amalgamation and a link to the new municipality. This merge may be warranted, but I think that it could be controversial (see the edit summary of the first edit on Bad Eisenkappel, for example), and should be done only after a well=advertised merge discussion on the Bad Eisenkappel talk page.  Right now the talk pages of both articles are pretty well empty. If there is a consensus to merge, I'd be glad to do the technical part. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 11:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking into this so quickly and so carefully. OK, I understand your reasoning but as I know Eisenkappel quite well myself I was surprised when I searched for it on EN Wikipedia, to see that Bad Eisenkappel turned up with no interwiki links to other language versions. Only after searching in German, did I discover the main article in English was in fact Eisenkappel-Vellach (which also links to all the other languages). If we leave things as they are, then I would be tempted to copy much of the information in Eisenkappel-Vellach into the Bad Eisenkappel article which is pretty thin at the moment. The categorization of Eisenkappel-Vellach is also misleading. It seems to me it should be Category:Districts of Carinthia (state) rather than Category:Cities and towns in Carinthia (state). The title could also be usefully changed to Eisenkappel-Vellach district. At the moment, it's all very confusing!--Ipigott (talk) 12:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Ipigott, as a Canadian bluegrass musician, I really am ignorant about this topic. I have never even set foot in Europe.  It's likely, as you say, that some changes should be made, but perhaps the place to discuss it is either on the talk page of the article or on the appropriate WikiProject, where you may get input from local people or at least from historians, geographers or people who know about municipal administration.  I'm sorry I can't be of more help. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry to have bothered you about this. I'll see what I can do about it myself, possibly with the help of who is a geographer. I was interested btw to see you are from Toronto. I spent a few years in Montreal when I was younger. Great place!--Ipigott (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not a bother - I would help if I felt that I had anything to contribute. Instead of being from Toronto, though, I actually live in a small town which no longer has any legal existence, because it has been amalgamated into a larger municipality....  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=628706977 your edit] to William Hanna Shomali 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].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yarmouk University]] and was a lecturer and later director of the Minor Seminary of Beit Jala. with The Festival of the Bluegrass, which was named by [[

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=629731978 your edit] to Sargam (1992 film) 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].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * today-tamil-news-39099 "Rambha celebrates her birthday today"]. IndiaGlitz June 05, 2008

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=629999202 your edit] to Farewell, My Love (Band) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//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].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * entry/farewell_my_love_gold_tattoos "Farewell, My Love: Gold Tattoos"]. AltPress Wippsson, Johan. [http://www.melodic.net/?page=news&amp;id=22894 Farewell,

Please comment on Talk:Efforts to impeach Barack Obama
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Efforts to impeach Barack Obama. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Volleyball players layout
Wikiproject volleyball would like to hear your opinion in this discussion. Thanks, Osplace 21:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Reel Women
Now in main namespace at Reel Women. Nice work in improving the AfC submission. NorthAmerica1000 17:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Turkish people
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Turkish people. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mikiea Perkins


Hello Anne Delong. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Mikiea Perkins".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

My article for Articles for Creation
Hi Anne I have just completed an article for submission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HeatherBlack/Nancy_Petry. I asked for advice at the Teahouse and was told that the Draft root was the best way to go? But then are they checked by the Creation people? I know you do Articles for Creation (my first entry on Hannah Franklin) and had mentioned in the past that you could enter it or tell me what to do. If so, I'd really appreciate it. This entry is non-controversial (National Gallery of Canada had a touring exhibition of her work). HeatherBlack (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, HeatherBlack. It looks like you've put a lot of work into this, and I agree that you are pretty safe on the notability requirements. I am not an expert on artist articles, but right now the article seems more like a tribute than an encyclopedia article.  You may want to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts for an opinion by editors who work regularly with art articles.  Opinions of the artist or of those writing up blurbs for gallery exhibitions shouldn't be in the article, just facts.  Opinions of art critics are acceptable as long as there's a citation to the review.  I'm sure that you already know that no text from any published document (including exhibition programs) can be used in the article, and have avoided this.


 * From the conversation at the Teahouse, I am wondering if you have figured out how to move an article to a new title. If not, here's how:  There's a little triangle on the row of options at the top of the page.  If you click on that, you'll see a "Move" screen, and then you pick the namespace (such as "User" or "Draft" or "Article").  Next you type in the title of the page, fill in the reason for the move and click on the "move page" button.


 * You are an autoconfirmed user, so you can move the article into the encyclopedia yourself if you decide to. However, if you do, and other editors think it's too promotional or contains opinion, it will end up with "tags" at the top, asking for improvement. That's why I suggested discussing it first at the Visual arts project.


 * Alternatively, you can ask for a review by experienced editors by adding . However, right now there are over 3,000 articles waiting for review, so you'd have to be patient.  Likely the reviewers would ask the art experts for helping reviewing anyway, so why not ask them yourself right away?


 * I hope this helps. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It helps a lot. You write very clearly! I reread Hannah Franklin, so I'll keep only one or two of the quotes, tone down the text and resend it if you don't mind reading it again. I also now found the triangle and where I can move it to "Article" after I run it by the Visual arts group. Thanks again. HeatherBlack (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anne Here is the new and less descriptive text. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HeatherBlack/Nancy_Petry If anything pops out at you, please let me know. Thanks again HeatherBlack (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear HeatherBlack: You have made some good changes to the article. I have a couple of additional suggestions, and then I think you will be ready to present your work to someone with more expertise in this field.  First, you have some text in quotation marks; if these are actual quotes, they need to be attributed to someone.  You could write "According to John Smith, art critic for the Globe and Mail,..." or "Susan Jones, columnist for Canadian Art magazine, described her work as ..."


 * Second, the quotation you have chosen for the lead paragraph is rather confusing, and in my opinion should be replaced with something more direct. Remember that this will be read by people who haven't yet read the article. Do you mean that she was one of the first to do performance art in a gallery? Or is the collective mentioned also some kind of gallery, and did she do performance art there, or organize others to do so?  The blurb at Collections Canada says "She represented Véhicule Art at the Arte Fiera, Bologna, Italy in 1977 and 1978 thus establishing the gallery as the main venue of performance art in Canada."  It doesn't attribute this to her vice-presidency, and doesn't say what she actually did in Italy to achieve such a dramatic effect.  A more neutral, independent source, actually naming whose opinion this is, would be needed to support the statement that Véhicule Art, which has neither a Wikipedia article or an article in the Canadian Encyclopedia, is Canada's main performance art venue. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Great advice. I will fix it and send it off. I really appreciate your help. Thanks again. 70.52.30.69 (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2014 Formula One season
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2014 Formula One season. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David De Cremer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Leuven. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

submission of Articles for creation: Carol Wincenc -accepted as start class
Thank you for accepting the article on flutist Carol Wincenc. I will try to edit and improve it. I'm also open to suggestion and to having others edit or improve it. Meftab


 * Hello, Meftab. I'm glad to hear that you plan to improve the article. Things to watch out for: (1) be sure not to copy any text from another published source.  I had to rewrite a lot of the article to avoid legal issues; (2) be sure not to add any promotional words (such as "famous", "remarkable", that sort of thing); (3) if there are reviews of her work by music critics or journalists that I didn't find, you can add them as references - please don't add non-independent profiles from her organizations as references. (4) If any of the people mentioned in the article have Wikipedia pages, you can add a link in the article to their pages; (5) you may want to add an "infobox".  Take a look at the wikicode in this article Wilfrido Vargas.  It needs better references, but has a good infobox, and you can copy the code and replace the information. I hope that you enjoy editing Wikipedia and will consider improving other articles as well.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

PS - After posting on a talk page, you can sign your username quickly by typing four "~" characters in a row.

Halloween cheer!


Happy Halloween!

'''Hello Anne Delong: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!''' – NorthAmerica1000 06:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Halloween cheer!


Happy Halloween!

'''Hello Anne Delong: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!'''   –   The Herald  13:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Little help on George Atallah
Hi Anne, about a year ago you kindly reviewed the draft article for George Atallah that my colleague Chris had submitted to AfC, and took it live. I'm hoping that you might have a bit of time to take a look at a couple of edits I'm requesting to the article on behalf of the NFLPA (George's employers). I won't make any edits to the article myself because I'm working on behalf of the NFLPA and therefore have a conflict of interest.

There's a full request on the Talk page of the article if you're able to take a look, but here's a quick summary of what I'm asking:


 * 1) Some silly vandalism was added to the page and I'd appreciate if you could remove it.
 * 2) There's a proposed short addition to the page regarding Atallah's statement about player rights, following Ray Rice's indefinite suspension. I wonder if you could review and add it to the article if it looks ok.

Do you think you'd be able to take a look? Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 19:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, 16912 Rhiannon. I removed the blatant advertisement from the page.  However, I don't know anything about football, and I can't tell if your second change is appropriate or not.  I think you should post a request at WT:WikiProject American football or WT:WikiProject National Football League. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much, Anne! So appreciate your help here and I totally understand about preferring someone else look over the potential addition. I've left a request on WikiProject American Football and not heard anything from editors there, so I'll give the NFL WikiProject a try. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 18:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
 Church  Talk 20:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:Co-op
Hey Anne, this is Jethro, a fellow host at the Teahouse. With a small team, I'm developing and will be piloting a new mentorship space on Wikipedia called the Co-op. I wanted to ask if you might be interested in mentoring 1 or 2 editors during our pilot that is planned for this December. The idea is that mentors will be doing one-on-one teaching based on how an editor wants to contribute, and it's not some huge commitment to teach comprehensively about Wikipedia. Your experience helping editors out at the Teahouse and AfC would be valuable for us, and we fullly expect participants to be seeking mentorship with regard to a specific article they are building or having trouble with. If you're interested, please sign up here and we'll keep you posted when we have an actual interface to work with. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have, of course, so let me know if there's anything about the space you'd like to know more about. Much like the Teahouse, the only way we'll know if our project is useful is if we can get folks to help teach. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Anne, thanks for your interest in the project— saw that you signed up there and your questions about how things would work. Let me give you a vastly oversimplified rundown and feel free to ask me to elaborate on anything:
 * The general idea is that we're matching editors: We've got mentors on one end who have experience in certain kinds of editing and on the other end we have editors who want to be mentored to help them with some concrete task or problem.  Both parties will make very basic profiles to provide this information, some of which will be used to automatically create matches between an editor and an available and appropriate mentor.  Once a match has been made, we create a common page for the mentor and editor to use, though they're not obligated to use it (i.e. mentors and learners can interact in any way they find convenient).  Generally, we'd like to see mentorships stick to the specific topic or task the editor initially requested a mentor for so that mentorship has a definite end so that nobody feels tied down. That said, if both the mentor and editor are OK with exploring other topics, that's fine too.


 * As creators of the space, our team is not enforcing a particular pedagogical approach for mentorship, but we do expect that mentors have demonstrable experience and are comfortable in the topics they choose to teach. Other expectations about mentors or mentoring we'd like our volunteers to decide on with us in November. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT  drop me a line 04:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Ashfaq Ishaq
I see you've been working on this, but the changes that you;ve made don't seem to address the root problems of promotionalism and borderline notability. Are you plannign to work on it further?  DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, - how is it now?&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I was in considerable doubt about notability, and I still think many of the refs are PR or peripheral, but I checked and his magazine is a fairly important publication, so I emphasized it a little. I still think it's borderline, but no reason not to have it take its chances, so I accepted it.  DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: David Silberman has been accepted
<div style="border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:#E6FFE6; padding:1em; padding-top:0.5em; padding-bottom:0.5em; width:20em; color:black; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> David Silberman, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! EBY (talk) 01:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Anne_Delong help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

My article for Articles for Creation
Hello Anne, I have an article for submission, please: Draft:You (Marcia Hines/Rita Coolidge song) It has been reviewed and finalized, but simply needs final approval. Thank you! JGabbard (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear JGabbard: I know that this is unfair, but it seems that three days ago another user made an article about this topic at You (Marcia Hines song). I didn't notice it myself until I had spent some time checking out your references. Once this happens, the thing to do is look at the existing page, and copy from your draft anything that's not already in the article for which you have a good reference. There's quite a bit, actually, that you can add. However, most of the sources that you have included are not suitable and should not be added to the article.

Let me summarize the sources you have used:


 * (1) and (3) Pop Rocks - a site with an editor and an editorial policy, although an amateur one - okay
 * (2) Gossip rocks - a user contributed site like Wikipedia - anyone can add a profile - not reliable
 * (4) Google play - an online store - this should be removed - Wikipedia can't promote sales, and the information isn't neutral and independent
 * (5) Top 40 DB - another site that anyone can edit - not reliable
 * (6) and (9) If there is chart information on the LAC website, you will need to include the exact URL, not just a pointer to the library in general.
 * (7) Another user contributed site - not reliable
 * (8) Cashbox - this was pretty anonymous, but I was able to find the main page and the source. It's not the original source (which apparently is for sale), but it will do until someone can replace it with a reference to the original chart.
 * (10) An archived chart - good
 * (11) This page doesn't mention the song, and appears to be a personal web site.

The three bolded sites are reasonable references. My suggestion is to just delete the unreliable ones, add the vague ones only if you can find the specific charts, keep the three good ones and then add your new information to the mainspace article. The combined article should be better than either would be separately. When you have finished, let me know and I will get rid of the draft. I'm going to decline it now, since we can't have two articles about the same song. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, Anne. I appreciate your assistance.JGabbard (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Courrier
Hi - please don't add multiple blue links to entries on disambiguation pages, as at Courrier. Disambiguation pages should have no more than one link per entry, per WP:MOSDAB. For some quick dos and don'ts for disambiguation pages, check out WP:DDD. —Swpbtalk 15:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up, .  I learn something every day on this project.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * After eight years, so do I :) —Swpbtalk 16:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=632226525 your edit] to Ehud Ettun 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].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * *Heading North Internal Compass Records, 2012

Please comment on Talk:Debito Arudou
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Debito Arudou. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Polycerate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Serpent. 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) 16:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Honeywell CP-6
I see you did a lot with this article. I don't quite understand what went on, but it looks pretty good! Peter Flass (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, Peter Flass. I found an old draft that had mostly the same text as the earlier versions of this page.  The mainspace version had to be a copy-paste of this draft, or possibly they were both copied from somewhere else.  Also, the article was written like a nostalgic tribute to the development team. I history-merged the two together to preserve attribution, and tried to rewrite more concise and neutral text.  However, I only did the sections that were in the old draft.  The rest of the stuff is all new, and it could use some work.  I never did understand programmers who brag about how many lines of code their programs included - I always tried to use a few as possible!  I never worked with any of the operating systems or equipment mentioned, so I hope I didn't introduce any error. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Edward Bryan had added this to the Universal Time-Sharing System article, where it overwhelmed the rest of the material. I moved most of his text to the new CP-5 article with notes on both talk pages, and then edited it.  I think Ed may have had an attempt at a stand alone article previously deleted, or ignored, which is probably why it was on the "articles for creation" list.  Anyhow, all good now. Peter Flass (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:S. Truett Cathy
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on '''Talk:S. Truett Cathy'''. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Manalalva/sandbox
User:Manalalva/sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Manalalva/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Manalalva/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mortice Gauge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortise. 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) 10:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Moving Sandbox article into 'Articles for Submission'
Dear Anne Many thanks for your message. I have requested for an undelete of a submission. However, I had kept it in sandbox and had not wanted the article to be moved into an 'request for article submission' primarily because I had not wanted it to be previewed, it was far from finished and definitely in infancy. For my information, do you automatically sift through sandboxes and select articles to be put forward for submission? If so, I will definitely not use sandbox again. Many thanks, MB


 * Hello, Cosmic-antidust. No, I don't go around checking random sandboxes.  On May 12, 2013, you made an edit which submitted your article for review.  That's when I moved it to the review area - because of your own request for a review.  However, that is just a housekeeping thing, to give the article a title; it wouldn't have mattered where the draft article was located; even if I hadn't moved it, once it has been submitted, it is subject to Wikipedia's policy that draft articles should be under development, not left unchanged for long periods of time.  An automatic process finds articles that have not been improved for six months or more, notifies the user that it will soon be deleted if not improved, and adds them to a list for checking in 30 days.  I see that you have received these notices on your talk page.  Then, a month or so later, they are deleted by editors (in this case me) who go through the list systematically, unless someone has made an improvement during that time. Any little improvement...


 * I see that I was the one who reviewed the article in 2013, noting that it lacked references to reliable independent sources (news reports, magazine articles, books, etc., written about the person). Please note that Wikipedia only has articles about people who are well enough known outside their circle of acquaintances that journalists, critics and other articles have written extensively about them.  If that's not the case here, there is no point in reviving the draft at this time.  If you don't have any such references to add, it may be better to leave it where it is for now.  There is no time limit on the refund, so if the subject of your article-to-be later received a lot of press coverage, you could request the refund then.  In the meantime, your partly finished draft would not be being picked up by mirror sites and Google searches.


 * About your sandbox: This is useful for experimenting with Wikicode and seeing how your first draft   will look, but if you are seriously into creating new articles, you may want to use subpages instead. For example, if you type User:Cosmic-antidust/John Smith into the search engine, it will give you the opportunity to create a page called "User:Cosmic-antidust/John Smith", where you can work on an article about John Smith.  That way you can have several drafts on the go and give them titles.


 * If you do get a refund on the page you were discussing above, but don't plan to work on it soon, you may want to make a copy in a word processor on your computer and save it, because eventually, if your draft doesn't look as though its on its way to becoming and article, your future requests for refund may be denied. I hope my explanation has clarified the matter; if not, please feel free to ask additional questions, or ask for help at the WP:Teahouse.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews
Hello. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular. The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered. If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.) If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with. Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors. I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC). Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alien (creature in Alien franchise)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Alien (creature in Alien franchise). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Quick Question
Hello. How are you doing? I have a quick question about the reliability and usability of a source. This has been used in John Barrett (salon) article. The source is simply a place where anybody can post a review. And there is no editorial review. Can this be used in an article? Am I missing something?Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, Muhammad Ali Khalid. Well, it's true that reader reviews (and statistics about them) can't be used to show the notability of a subject.  There is another tab on that page that leads to a "Profile", which appears to have been written by the magazine's staff, although I'm not sure.  However, the text in the article makes it clear that the reviews are what the editor wanted to reference.  SO, two things: (1) Is the subject notable without that reference?  If not, I'd look for alternate sources to show notability, for example, the profile which I mentioned, and place them appropriately.  (2) The sentence in the article is specifically about the reader reviews, but this is not a scientific poll of opinion, just some people who happened to read the article in the paper. These reviews are on a section of the newspaper which is a news blog or forum, so I believe WP:NEWSBLOG applies here, which says "Never use blog posts that are left by readers as sources."  This is my interpretation, but I would expect that the reader review data could only be used if an independent source wrote about this data (unlikely).  If it were me, I would remove the sentence and the reference, and leave an edit summary inviting others to discuss it on the talk page, where I would post my reason for the removal. Be prepared for someone to come up with a reason for inclusion that neither of us have considered, though.  I hope this helps. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Anne, thank you so much for the detailed answer. There is not question about the notability of the company. They have been written about and reviewed widely in important media outlets. I agree with your point of view that WP:NEWSBLOG does apply here and I removed the reference and the review leaving the rationale on the talk page. Thanks for the help. Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 08:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Re:Chengdu International School
Anne,

According to the speedy deletion template in the article at the time of its deletion, the copyrighted material was pulled from https://cdischina.com/en/policies-and-procedures/ and =https://cdischina.com/en/overview-3/. I hope that helps. If I can be of any further assistance, please drop me line.

Sincerely,

TomStar81 (Talk) 23:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback to Debito Arudou BLP
Hello Anne Delong. As the subject of the BLP, I just wanted to say thank you for your comments on the threaded discussion to the Debito Arudou BLP.

I would like to ask one favor: Could you also write in the survey above the threaded comments (link here) a "Yes", "No", "Maybe" etc summary of your argument? Thank you very much for your time and input. Arudoudebito (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Nada
Thank you for rescuing my article on Nada. I made several attempts to get that approved. Whoever was reviewing it did not think the topic was important enough to merit an article. So, I concluded that, no matter what I did, it was not going to be approved. So, I threw my hands up and gave up on that article and Wikipedia as well. I authored several articles before my attempt at that, but have done nothing since. I have to say that this is the first helpful thing I have experienced in my Wikipedia experience. Up till then, all I ever saw in my articles was people, often blindly, deleting, deleting and more deleting, usually leaving gaps in the text. While my contribution days are over, I did want to let you know that I did appreciate your bringing that article back from the dead. That book is assigned in Spanish courses in every major univesity in the United States. I am sure many will be interested in reading that article.

Thanks again.

Springfieldohio (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Springfieldohio. I'm sorry that you had a bad experience with this article. Wikipedia has a policy that articles must demonstrate the "notability" of the subject. Sometimes an article is written which is about a perfectly acceptable topic (as you noted, the book is well known), but the article as written isn't appropriate. Editors mistakenly add more and more information and promotional language to show that their topic is "notable", but this is counterproductive. in Wikipedia, "notable" means literally "noted by many", so keeping the article plain and short, and adding plenty of citations to show that journalists, critics, academic writers and other authors have written about the topic is the way to go. With articles about books, the most common problem is that the editors are used to writing essays rather than encyclopedia articles, and include great long plot summaries and opinions, analysis, etc., which are great for showing critical thinking in literature classes, but aren't what's needed in an encyclopedia article, which should be just factual, with plenty of citations to back up the facts. I haven't looked at your other articles, but if they were also about novels, that may be why editors were deleting sections.

About 130,000 people edit Wikipedia every month, from twelve-year-old boys to great-grandmothers, and with all of these pesonalities interacting sometimes getting a new article accepted is a bit of a struggle. If you don't want that stress, I hope that you will still choose to contribute to some of the four million existing articles. For example, if you read an interesting book review, you could boost the "notability" of the book by adding the review as a reference if it contains facts such as where and when the book was published, if it was translated in to other languages, awards or book list appearances, etc. Anyway, thanks for writing the Nada article; It seems that a number of people have read it already, and I'm sure that it will continue to be of interest. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jillana, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Arthur Mitchell, Liebeslieder Walzer and Jacques d'Amboise. 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) 10:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox person
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox person. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Joyou
I think it's OK. The company is obviously notable, it's referenced, and your edits have made it neutral in tone. I can't really see a basis for an AFD, let alone a CSD, thanks <b style="font-family:chiller;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> -  talk to me?  06:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I have moved it to mainspace.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 11:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 3 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Draft:Somebody's Hero (film) page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=636464307 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) and a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F636464307%7CDraft:Somebody's Hero (film)%5D%5D Ask for help])

Co-op: Pre-pilot discussion for mentors
Hey Anne. I've posted some initial information and discussions points about the space for mentors here. Give it a read, ask questions on what's not clear, and feel free to add suggestions to the topics I've brought up about mentoring so far. I just pinged a bunch of people at once for this; I understand that sometimes it doesn't go through, so I wanted to make sure you were aware. Thanks, <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Country templates
Can you also add them to talk pages, like this? Thanks! --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Soft Star Shoes
I have restored the edits made by the sockpuppet. Just because the edits were made by a sockpuppet doesn't mean that they weren't useful edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe so, Robert McClenon, but the version that I submitted for review, while less pretty, was neutrally written and sourced to multiple independent reviews and other news and magazine articles. The "puppetmaster" of the blocked user was him/herself blocked for using Wikipedia for advertising purposes, and sure enough every one of these reliable sources has been eliminated and replaced with press releases, the company website, an online store, and one very local glowing article, and the content has been rewritten as a folksy tribute and referenced back to these replacement sources. Are you sure that this is what you want to support? I'm not going to take the time to redo my previous source additions only to have them removed again, and the current draft will not pass a review with the sources as is. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Self-reverted based on information that the puppetmaster is promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Robert McClenon. I added back the infobox - it was just bare facts - except for the logo, which may not have proper licensing. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both. I'm not too keen to include the image  that came from this massive commercial sockfarm, in evasion of a block.  What do you think about deleting that link?  Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a picture of the front of a building, taken from the street. It's no more promotional than anyone else's photo of the same building. If it's to be relevant to any article, this would be the one, so isn't the question more whether the image is acceptable at Commons?  If they accept it as properly licensed, I don't see a problem, and if not, the question is moot, since it will disappear. Why not propose it for deletion there and see? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. The question is how much extra work is this giagantic commercial sockfarm going to create for the WP community?  She is already blocked at Commons--there is a massive file there, questioning the legitimacy of the OTRS tickets.  Anyway, my intent is to delete the link here on EN-WP.  You are right though that it would be possible to pursue this on Commons as well.  They are complementary paths, not the same thing though.  My assumption is that the owners of this company paid Newzealand123 to edit this.  They are as guilty as she is of violating the Terms of Use in terms of undeclared COI.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Pointless of me to say more, then, since you have already made up your mind. I'll get back to what I was doing. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for your contributions to WP! Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:South Beach Diet
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:South Beach Diet. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
<font color="008B8B">78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Independent Label Market
Are you done with this? If so, I'll promote it, although I don't know why you don't do it yourself. Good work. <font color="008B8B">78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Go ahead - I'm done if you think its acceptable. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Felicia Lee: notable?
Good morning, Anne. I have responded to your notability questions regarding Felicia Lee on the WP:Swimming talk page. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Anne. I started sifting through the links to the previously red-linked "Felicia Lee," and discovered not only was she a member of the silver medal U.S. relay team in the 4x50-meter medley at the 2014 FINA World Short Course Championships, but that she had participated in the finals of several individual events as well.  Together with the Honda Sports Award, this should be more than enough to sustain her notability under NCOLLATH and the basic criteria of NSPORTS.  With a little searching, the may be enough for a straight-up GNG pass, too.  Thanks for bringing this to the attention of WP:Swimming.  Cheers.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Lucia!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#B8860B; background-color:#FAFAD2; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Happy Saint Lucia's day!

"Good Morning" Anne Delong: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia! 13 December is the day when Swedes perplex the rest of the world by showing up way too early in the morning dressed in white tunics, candles in their hair, singing and bringing saffron buns and breakfast in bed to nice people. Hope you have a bright day! – <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  01:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I am suitably perplexed. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep! We scare the crap out of the Nobel laureates every year. :) Most of them stay a couple of days after the ceremony, and get the morning treatment on the 13:th. Best, <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  09:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kosovo War
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kosovo War. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leo Yerxa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Algonquin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry
To you and yours FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

New article tag on top
Hi Anne I just completed a new entry, moved it into the article area and a tag for new article popped up. Do I wait for someone to remove it or should I ask someone at the Teahouse review it? At the end of October I did contact the Visual Arts Project with a question and it went unanswered and I have since noticed that requests for comments are often ignored. I also noticed that you go through the Articles for Submission process. Is that the best route? My entry is a very recognized American stained glass artist, so there is no controversy over inclusion, only about my ability to record information correctly. Best regardsHeatherBlack (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, Heather. There is a group of editors called "New Page Patrollers" that check over new articles and tag any problems.  Like everything else in Wikipedia, there is a backlog of articles to be checked.  I've taken away the large tag, after making sure that the page wasn't eligible for speedy deletion.  It still has a small "unassessed" notice which will remain until the patrollers give it a checkup.  Next time, instead of asking at the Teahouse, I would ask at an appropriate WikiProject - in this case WikiProject Visual Arts. That way you'll get an opinion from a more informed source. In fact, you still may want to leave a message there about your new article.


 * I don't always use the Articles for Creation process - it's not necessary for an experienced editor. I mainly use it if I am fixing up someone else's AfC submission, since they will be expecting a review, and besides, sometimes the pages are about subjects that I don't know much about.  I also use it if I may have a conflict of interest - for example, if I am writing about an organization of which I am a member, or about someone that I know personally. Wikipedia has policies that discourage editing mainspace articles under those circumstances.  Good luck with your editing. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Anne. Thanks for the explanation and advice! Next time I'll try WikiProject Visual Arts. HeatherBlack (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of ethnic slurs
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of ethnic slurs. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays...
Thanks, U|78.26. I hope your holiday was as enjoyable as mine. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;&#125;&#125; to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Talkback
<font color="008B8B">78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Amy Pascal
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Amy Pascal. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)