User talk:Anne Delong/Archive 8

4696:. I looked over that page, and it seems to me that all of your sources are self-serving press releases, company announcements, industry profiles and directory listings, etc. Those links make the page more of an advertisement than an encyclopedia article, and Knowledge (XXG) doesn't accept promotional content. For there to be an article about this specific brand, you will need to remove these, and add instead a number of references to articles written about it by journalists and other authors in published newspapers, magazines, or books. Those writers must have no connection whatsoever with the company or with Dr. Goldstein. A review section is good, but the reviews included should be those written by experts in the field, not just random people who have tried the product. If you find some, they should be made into proper citations, not linked directly in the article. Right now, the review section is not written in a neutral way, but instead belittles the source of complaints and seeks to explain away the problems using a non-neutral source. Dr. Goldstein herself. Also, the article shouldn't contain any of your own opinion, such as using the word "ideal". 1573:. (Coincidentally, that is the very same number of results that I get when I Google a film I made in one afternoon in my living room, "Early Morning Computer Programming Blues", which I don't claim is notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry). The references that you have included, while all good, reliable sources, are mostly not about the film, but about the Arts Recovery Program, a song performance that predates the film, the theme upon which the film was based, etc. Was this film only shown once on CityTV? Was it not picked up for film festivals or other screenings? Did no one write up reviews about it? The film was made back at the beginnings of the internet, so if there were reviews or news reports they may have been on paper, and harder to find, although someone may have saved clippings. 743:

edge", "hottest venues" and many more. Perhaps you are unaware that encyclopedia articles just contain neutral facts. Very little of what you have written is acceptable. The article shouldn't be telling the readers why they should stay at these hotels, or how wonderful the founders are – that's advertising, and I'm sure the company has its own web site for that. What's wanted are bare facts – When and where and by whom was the company was founded? Where is it's head office? Is it a private or public company? Have there been expansions, mergers, financing, etc. that have been reported in the news? When and where was the first hotel was built and what size was it? How many hotels are there now and what countries are they in? etc.

4170:. I don't really know much about the Guggenheim Fellowship, but even so there are a number of other awards, so I agree that she is notable. It seems that the creator of the draft has added some references to show that some of these are legitimate awards since the first comment was made. I added some book reviews to improve the references. There can be other reasons why a draft is not acceptable, though. For example, the article describes her as a professor, but the link given to her academic affiliation says "senior lecturer", which is not the same. However, since the person is notable, it's possible to accept the submission and add {{citation needed}} in spots like that if there are just one or two. — 3179:. I noticed that you were working on the article again. I have searched thoroughly on the internet and failed to find much else to improve the referencing on the article. Most Knowledge (XXG) articles are about bands that have toured internationally, played at multiple festivals or concerts, had records on the charts, or had their performances and recordings reviewed extensively in the entertainment sections of newspapers and magazines. If you have off-line resources such as newspaper clippings, it is okay to include them as long as you know the name of the newspaper, the headline and the date published. If not, it will be hard to make a case that this passes either 4015:. I don't have a good understanding of this topic or of companies in general, but there are a couple of things that I can suggest. First, saying "a Loveland company" is rather vague. Do you mean that it is a subsidiary of a company called Loveland something? Also, some of the references are not on line. If you have access to them, you could check to make sure that they are independent of the company – that is, not written by company employees or PR people. I see that someone has removed the Articles for creation banner from the draft, but when you are ready to submit it for review you can add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page. — 2817:'s message last evening after being in an internet-free zone all day (entertaining at a pioneer village), and got as far as thinking that this would be a good use for the Highbeam access that I signed up for at the Knowledge (XXG) Library. Then I promptly fell asleep before I had time to finish reviewing it. Mabalu, as an experienced editor, you could have moved the page yourself, but I often do as you did when I have done considerable work on a draft, and let someone less involved decide. Good luck with your GA; I've never been involved with one of those – I seem to spend most of my time among the HA (horrible articles). — 196:

singing along in unison at some parts, and I think "how is debatable that this group is 'notable' "? They got similar reactions in many spots in Europe and across the US. The requirement of basically significant coverage in mainstream media is really tough for, by definition, non-mainstream culture! That said, I see MANY Knowledge (XXG) articles of underground bands that have far provided less justification for inclusion than the work I've done. I kind of worry that calling attention to this might cause trouble for those articles, but again, I am kind of indignant that Blitzkid may not get their due encyclopedic entry!

4795:). Most often copyright holders don't want to do that anyway, because they are basically giving away their text, which can then be used by anyone, changed, and even sold, according to Knowledge (XXG)'s license. Also, text in people's official profiles is often too promotional for Knowledge (XXG) (for example, praise, name-dropping and selective review comments), and is soon changed by other editors anyway, so going through the legal process ends up being a waste of time. Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, not a web host, and people are discouraged from creating "profiles" of themselves or their colleagues. (see 1535:

ancillary material and cites. I have included only the notable “independent reviews or features in movie magazines” and “entertainment news sources” as you recommended: the Hollywood Reporter, Daily Variety, Los Angeles Times, Academy of Arts and Sciences and the United Nations. Thank you for your editorial comments and for your Knowledge (XXG) protocol advice. Thank you for taking the time to help get this article accepted. I'm a fan of bluegrass music, in particular the various finger-style picking techniques. Amazing. I welcome any further comments and ways of interacting. SpaceJace

1569:. You significantly improved the article. I have trimmed and rearranged a bit and I found URLs for a couple of the references. HOWEVER, I think that there may be a fundamental problem with the article: Notability. Knowledge (XXG) doesn't have articles about all films; only those which have been written about extensively by film reviewers, journalists, and other authors. This article is about a film which was nominated, but did not win, a local rather than major award. An internet search of the title led to a list of 24 web sites, and 2685: 238:(linked with the little numbers in the text, should only be of the first kind. Links to other types of web sites such as YouTube videos, the band's profile on sites where they add it themselves, facebook, twitter, sites that sell CDs and track downloads are the other kind – not independent and neutral, not written by professional journalists or reviewers. Most of these should be just left out; a few particularly relevant ones can be put in the "External links" section after the band's website. 4391:. This was one of the abandoned G13's that was on my list for a whole year. Each volume was originally a separate submission, but as you pointed out, reliable sources were hard to find. I figured that by combining and making one article about the series it might squeak through. I think there's a fifth volume now. Ellison is such a wonderful reader that I felt the audiobooks deserved a separate writeup. These stories are so evocative – I can still vividly remember reading 1823:. A draft there will be reviewed and tagged, but not deleted (except for copyright violations, which have to go), but the page will not show up in search engines until it is moved out to the encyclopedia. This gets rid of the urgency and lets new editors get their feet wet. It is recommended that people such as yourself who have a vested interest in an article create it there. If your article is deleted because of the AfD discussion, you can always start over there. 2768:? I would like to be able to link it from an article that is currently about to undergo a Good Article assessment/review. It isn't my draft (although I have expanded and revised it rather a lot after discovering that it had been started.) Normally I would be happy to wait, but with the GA review coming up I'd rather like to have this up – and am not sure if, as an editor, I'm allowed to move it myself without it receiving a proper review first. Thanks so much! 5375: 1443: 31: 117: 5256: 3954: 4924:{{cite news|last=Stamler|first=Bernard|title=NEIGHBORHOOD REPORT: RELATIONS -- UPPER WEST SIDE; Horne's Accompanist, on Piano and at Movies|url=http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/03/nyregion/neighborhood-report-relations-upper-west-side-horne-s-accompanist-piano-movies.html?scp=1&sq=brian+zeger+marilyn+horne&st=nyt|accessdate=3 January 2013|newspaper=New York Times|date=3 May 1998}}</ref: --> 226:. It will not necessarily be the same reviewer again; the way it works is that experienced editors look over the submissions, and choose ones to work on that are in areas in which they have experience. You have made the submission very long and complicated, so you have to wait correspondingly for a reviewer with plenty of time to spend checking it out. Here are my thoughts in the meantime: 4968: 892: 4243:. Well, you wrote the article, so I presume that you think the subject is notable. What I do in a situation like this is to see if I can find more evidence of notability, and if I find some, add it to the article, and then contact the editor who placed the tag and see if he/she agrees that it can be removed. If so, harmony is restored. In this case, you might add some of these: 4791:: All except the first few words of the text that was in this submission has been previously published on the Julliard website, and is clearly marked as copyright. It can't legally be copied into Knowledge (XXG) by a user with an anonymous user name, no matter who wrote it. There is a legal process for donating copyrighted text to the encyclopedia (Here it is: 5649:, who volunteered to answer my questions after my RfA. I'd be in favour of formalizing this process with an admin "Teahouse" as long as it was just a Q&A/help page about admin related problems (including questions from non-admins who want to know more about the tools), but I wouldn't want to see a separate/elite "hangout" where only admins are welcome. — 739:. Finding those sources is a good start. Can you please look through them and remove any that are (1) press releases or other text written by someone connected with the company, and (2) blog, wordpress or forum postings, since these are considered to be personal rather than professional publications. You can probably spot these more accurately than I can. 1916: 4301: 2983: 2905: 4498: 4057: 3866: 3057: 1282: 3732:. Unfortunately, unless someone makes an edit to this draft at least once every six months, it will disappear under db-g13 (which, however, is refundable). What often happens with these long-term drafts is that another user comes along, doesn't notice the draft, and makes a fresh article, wasting the efforts of those maintaining the draft. — 635: 3333:; it took me a while to figure out that I had removed too many characters while trying to follow the directions about the time stamp. I didn't want to mess with an already active page, so I created a phoney admin candidate page and messed around until it worked. Happily the correction transcluded in automatically once I fixed it. — 799:. I think my "copy" didn't work, leading me to accidentally past the previous item in the paste buffer into the dialogue box. I should have looked more carefully at the result. The page you found was the one I intended, but it looks to me as though it will be a fair amount of work to remove all of the copyvio. ( 3591:

problems that I had was that it was hard to tell exactly what text the various tag templates would place on the page. Sometimes I would select the wrong one and have to replace it. Although a lot of them are the same tags as Twinkle uses, the selection in the menus is not the same. Luckily Twinkle has a set of

5599:

Thanks for sharing your experience as an admin. I think it'll be very helpful to others. I smiled when I saw you admit you deleted a category. I managed to delete administrative categories twice in the last month. Thankfully, the editor that reported it assumed good faith and assume correctly that it

3706:

I don't deal with nominations for creation. When it is appropriate, I just create. I would not go out of my way to create an article for Aliyah Johnson at this time. She's a young athlete showing some promise. Will that develop into something notable? She's close, but not worthy of mention now.

3615:

I don't think most editors think AfC reviewing is insignificant – but some of them don't like it; let's face it, it doesn't work perfectly. Some may have been showing restraint rather than ignorance, so it's better not to make assumptions or you may come across as dismissive yourself. Trying out NPP

3142:

Dear Tdamico789: I see that your article about the Ghost of Otis is up for review. I found a couple of extra references for you. This looks like an interesting band, but I can see that you are having trouble in writing the article in an "encyclopedic style". Would you like some help with this? I

1584:

article, mentioning the arts grants, and giving some examples, one of which could be funding of the film. This is a high profile and widely watched article, though, so only do this if you can find a news report or other reference that specifically names the film or its creators as a grant recipient.

233:

Remember that "notability" on Knowledge (XXG) has nothing to do with fame or popularity. It only means that the subject has been written about by a number of authors and journalists, in proper publications with editors (on paper or on line) and that the information in the article is verified by what

1834:

Step two: Remove all external links that are to web sites which are connected to you or which belong to organizations which have published your poetry, and put just a few in a section marked "External links" at the end, and don't use them as references – they have a vested interest in promoting you.

1604:

I have several books including two anthologies I edited, won two NJ State Arts Council Fellowships, one in prose and one in poetry, won the Kinereath Genseler Award for my book Panic (also a BOTYA finalist) with Alice James Books, and there are a ton of links to my work on line. A quick search pulls

1579:

I hate to write such discouraging words to you, especially since I can see that you have the makings of a good Knowledge (XXG) editor (willingness to work collaboratively is a big plus here). If the article is turned down, you might consider instead expanding the "Rebuilding Los Angeles" section of

742:

Now comes the hard part. The text in this article seems very polished and promotional, the kind of thing that would be written by the company PR department for a company brochure. It's full of travel industry jargon and what Wikipedians call "peacock words", such as "dynamic", "dramatic", "cutting

5603:

I was also interested in your guardian angel comment. When I first became an admin I half expected that someone would tap me on the shoulder and say they were assigned to watch over me for a while and answer any questions I might have. Needless to say that did not happen. I think it would be a good

3570:

Hi Anne – I've just done my first ever NPP actions, now I'm wondering if they are properly logged as such. Some commentators at my RfA (correctly) said I had not done any NPP work, to know that it must obviously be logged, but where? (I used the Page Curation Tool, very similar to Twinkle.) BTW, so

3384:

Hey, Roger, the show's not over yet. Try not to stress (ha, I know, easy to say...). You still have a lot of support....and one way or the other you will have had an interesting experience and learned a lot. I would like to point out that even those who are opposing have good things to say about

2728:

Dear Anne Delong, After the first day of the Wiki kurfuffle, I learned enough to realize I should step away, and frankly, I figured the page would go, and that was fine, and I was even grateful for what I had learned. But the last few days I have scores of messages and emails, and today someone got

1055:

This man has been in the news fairly frequently. Can you perhaps cite some of these articles to improve the referencing, particularly in the sections that have no citations? I know little of Nigeria, so you will know better than I which ones are respected news sources there. Taking out some of the

450:

Hmmm silly of me not to think of checking the French encyclopedia. I wasn't planning to use that source, of course, but I was concerned that it discussed the subject of the article's activities as a Knowledge (XXG) editor. I guess this is another problem with editing under a username that makes one

398:

Hey I did that! I wasn't so sure I'd be good at helping, but I randomly picked one (plena libre) and it turned out to be a music article declined by the same editor that declined me, for the same reason. I quickly saw some minor helpful edits to make, but don't have any more time right now. This is

241:

About "last.fm" – You have a lot of references to it in the article. I have not had experience with this web site, but from what I understand, it aggregates and streams track found on the internet, and bands or anyone else can add information to it. If my impression is correct, then this is not an

189:

So, I resubmitted the Blitzkid article 6 days ago and am awaiting the verdict. If you have a chance, could you look at it and tell me if you think it has a shot? I also wrote a "noteablity defense" of it on my Talk page and reproduced it on the article's talk page; I don't know if the editor making

2732:

I'm flabbergasted, and I want to thank you for your support. I know, I know, the support isn't exactly for me; it's about integrity of information and about weighing out things impartially, and establishing context and credibility, but that took time and thoughtfulness, and I am grateful for that,

1534:

Dear Anne Delong. Just wanted to thank you for your attentive and thorough suggestions. Your advice in “getting this article accepted” is much appreciated, well-taken and I welcome more on my latest revision. Is this the best way to communicate? Based upon your advice, I have eliminated all

354:

The article was approved. Your help was very instrumental; prior to that, apparently the only thing that occurred to me was to argue with the original editor that declined the submission. You got me moving, and though I may have overdone it, I was fortunate that a patient editor helped me get that

5628:

and was not too surprised after seeing your work at rescuing G13 CSDs that you'd be recommended for the mop one day. I think that some people are more suited to being an admin than others, in exactly the same way that some people are better managers than others. It's interesting to see how people

5542:

The thing to do if you feel that Rozzi Crane is now notable and the article is not promotional, is to ask RHaworth to unprotect the title. He may have additional reasons for his action beyond what I've seen, because the title protection occurred before some of the other problems. Or, he may have

2736:

It's like a burbling, fomenting, fermenting wrack line between data and meaning and what should or should not be coalesced into a representation of human collective meaning. It's both elegant and rather scary. I am off to a conference in VT this week, and I almost certainly will write about this.

4436:

No, you were right – I was talking to another editor, but the message was posted long ago and I gave up waiting. I have to admit being responsible for adding the Goodreads refs. I hadn't used it before. I knew that I couldn't reference any of the comments or computer generated statistics, but

3590:

You can look at other people's logs too. Likely the reason that you are finding new page patrol easy is because you have learned a lot about what an article should look like while working at AfC. I haven't done any NPP since I became so busy with the G13s, but I seem to remember that one of the

432:

I can't read the web site in detail, but I can tell that it is an attack web site against Knowledge (XXG). I don't know if it is attacking the English Knowledge (XXG) or the French Knowledge (XXG). I would consider it to be unreliable and biased (although its purpose is to claim that Knowledge

237:

There are two kinds of items that are linked to the internet in Knowledge (XXG) articles: (1) references to reliable sources not connected to the band that verify the contents of the article, and (2) external links to further information (and there should only be a few of these). The references

1826:

About saving the article: Knowledge (XXG) has about 130,000 active editors, and each one has a unique personality, but the majority are helpful people. Often at these deletion debates, other editors step in and make improvements to the article, eventually changing the minds of some of the other

195:

Is it ok if I vent a little here? Having to do more work on this thing has been a labor of love, but I worry it might be rejected again which makes me a little indignant. I've been watching a video of the band playing a one hour and 45 minutes headline set in a club in Moscow, with a wild crowd

4767:

This page seems to have already been deleted after being flagged for copyright infringement, but the link to the cited text in question refers to text that was also written by me, there is no copyright infringement. Is it possible to restore this page? There still seems to be questions about

1841:

Step four: Add citations to reviews and other critical comment of your work to support the information in the article. Don't use any blogs, forums or wordpress sites, or any publishers sites or book sales sites, press releases, or any Youtube videos. Interviews only count if written up in a

3157:

Hi Anne, thanks for the extra references and your offer to assist. For many months, I've been trying to get the article right, trimming out promotional language and opinions, adding citations. Latest update was today. I'll happily accept your assistance in getting this article done.

3993:

Hi Anne, The draft:agricen page was an orphan. There is now a mention of Agricen in the Agrium entry (Agrium recently took a controlling interest in the company), so that it will not be an orphan if it becomes an article. Anything else you suggest for creating this article? Thanks!

242:

independent or reliable source. No independent journalists have written the text. Do some of the news articles contain the same facts? If so, you should reference them instead and remove the last.fm references in those cases. You can use the same reference to verify several facts.

2740:

I write to figure out what I think, to make connections and meaning. IN a way, that's what Wiki is collectively, only not toward the end of making an aesthetic artifact, but rather one of facts (oh, how mutable is that word?) and relevance. Maybe you have a thought on this?

4578: 304:

Hopefully, even if the article has "multiple issues" (as I've seen others tagged), if it is evident from the piece that BK are notable it may be approved without having to work each one out (perhaps with a flag?)? Well I suppose there isn't a rush, it has to be done

2061: 1830:

Step one: Rewrite any text that has already been published anywhere, for copyright reasons. (You can formally donate the text if you wrote it, but then you are licensing it to be used, changed and even sold by anybody. It would likely be too promotional anyway).

1818:

There is a special area of the encyclopedia reserved for editors who don't understand Knowledge (XXG)'s policies yet, in which a draft can be created which doesn't show up immediately in the encyclopedia until after it's been edited up to standards. This is called

290:

About that "long and complicated"; well I tried short(er) and sweet(er) and it didn't pan out, so in my inexperienced enthusiasm I went in the opposite direction trying to mount a cumulative case for notability. I see from your helpful feedback that may have been

2428:, I have replaced two of the Discogs references, but couldn't find a better one for "Red Tape". I did notice that the company was sometimes called "Decon Media". Do you think that that would be a better title for the redirect instead of Decon Records (label)? — 1195:

I found you from Teahouse. I want to change my username. I went through several wiki pages but I found it really confusing what to do. Will you please help me change my username with step by step process in simple terms and languages so that I can understand.

731:

I'm trying to get the NYLO Hotel page approved, but it is saying it isn't noteworthy enough. I have updated the page with more than 20 news sources discussing NYLO Hotels both positively and negatively. I'd like the page reviewed again if possible. Thank you!

864: 773:

deletion as a copyvio of Knowledge (XXG) talk:Articles for creation/Alessandro Rebucci . Presumably you mean a copyvio of something else? (If it is, tell me so I an fix it, because he seems to be notable) Some of it seems to be a very close parapharas of

1949:

The Delong Decimal system? I never heard of that. Actually Peter was listed and then someone with hot cat came by and put him into 20th century poets. (I certainly don't mind.) I came across Peter because I was living near Palm Springs and came across

4437:

since the book profile content was old enough to predate the purchase by Amazon, I thought it would be okay; I didn't realize until I did some re-reading that the profiles were not necessarily created by the Goodreads staff, but by random people. —

500:

Thanks for asking about this. The scientific controversy turned out to be very interesting and in my own field. I didn't know about it because it is all in French. So I added information about Alain Riazuelo to the Bogdanov affair article at

1210:. I've never done it myself, but it seems as though, after checking the items on the list, you just click where it says "Click here to place your request.", fill in your old name, your new name and the reason for the change, and then save. 2744:

You seem to have a ton of stars and notes, another process I know nothing about, that indicate that your Wiki peers think you are a reasoned and uber contributing member to the collective effort, and I add my thanks to it. Thank you. Laura

3347:

I'm glad you figured it out, in the end. The transclusion instructions are not easy to understand when you come across them for the first time, it took me some little mental effort to transclude my ArbCom candidature last year. Cheers.

1803:

Lmccullough: As several others have written, people who insist on writing autobiographies of themselves and adding them as encyclopedia articles often have difficulty. The acceptability of an article isn't about 'creds'. It's about:

318:

Thank you for the last.fm tip! That EMI fact is important, I shall endeavor to uncover a proper documentation of it. Thank you too for the links to the articles you authored... too bad I didn't think to ask to see them before I did all

5538:

was created about two months ago and deleted soon after for copyright infringement; then the draft was recreated a few days later. Three users and an IP have worked on these pages, and none of them have any other contributions.

4372:

Any objections to me approving that? I really appreciate you doing the cleanup there, that's above and beyond, but I'm convinced it's a good topic. And in fact, I will probably celebrate by buying at least one of the volumes.

2790:

My curiosity got the better of me so I took a look and the article seems fine, Armstrong definitely meets notability criteria as a widely reviewed author. I've moved it to mainspace. It had been waiting for 11 days already.

265:, are amateur musical groups, but the articles were accepted because reliable sources (mostly in newspapers) were found to back up all of the information. Because they are not long pages, there are fewer facts to back up! 4212:

and another editor thinks that this guy is not notable. Can you please take a look at the article and see if he qualifies the notability or not? In case he doesn't, feel free to mark the article for deletion. Thanks

5405: 5644:

About my "guardian angel" comment: I was actually referring to my pre-admin status, where I would nominate pages for this or that, but never actually had to take responsibility for the result. I was lucky to have

3616:

is a good idea; working in a variety of areas allows you interact with more editors and to see things from different perspectives. For example, you can see what new articles look like that don't come through AfC. —

249:

that will combine duplicate references and add titles to URLs (although it doesn't always work, and you still need to add the name of the journalist who wrote the article and sometimes the name of the publication).

4424:

I'm sorry I'd missed that that had been you recovering a G13, my phrasing at the article probably came off poorly because I thought you were talking to another editor there. Shows me for rushing the job. :)

5140:. I'm sorry, I didn't write the article; I just improved it somewhat. I don't really know anything about this fellow except what's in the article. Maybe someone else will see your infobox and add some details. — 4596:

out of the slush pile! I'm shocked you don't have one of these yet (unless I missed it in your bling collection), it's long past time this joins your collection. And who doesn't love a good helicopter rescue?

482: 2090: 1366: 2322:

Discogs is a user-generated site, and as such has been deemed unreliable (too bad, it is a very useful site, but so is Knowledge (XXG)...). The merged information uses this site as a reference liberally.

2246:

Not a copy-paste, and not much unique content, but quite a few references (some added by me), so I moved the URLs to the mainspace article (no need to maintain attribution on these) and deleted the draft.

4188:

Thank you so much! Yes, I was referring to the same article. Just like you I found the Kirkus and PW reviews of her books, which is why I commented that she is notable. Thanks a lot for the explanation.

2517: 433:(XXG) is non-neutral and biased). I would advise you to stay out of that morass. That is my advice. If you want to poke around in other declined articles, go ahead, but that one may be a minefield. 2057: 2049: 746:

The text that you have submitted and your desire for speedy acceptance leads me to believe that you may be connected in some way with the hotel chain and have a conflict of interest here. Please read

531:

and changed it into a redirect, to maintain attribution and to provide a start if he should ever become notable for anything besides the one incident. I'm glad that you found the topic interesting. —

4519: 4078: 3887: 3078: 1935:

Hey, you could always fix that. People who work on categories have a hard job, because everybody has their own idea of how articles should be organized. Me, I'm for the Dewey Decimal system... —

1303: 2550: 4745:

Why don't you just move the article to mainspace, and see if it has an AFD entered? Some AFC reviewers are exclusionist. Letting it run a possible AFD is more direct than submitting an MFD.

3490:. I had already read that. I have very strong opinions about this topic. I am improving Knowledge (XXG) by not expressing them until I can find a way to do so without the use of sarcasm. — 1814:

notability, which Knowledge (XXG) defines as having been written about extensively by independent journalists and authors (in this case book and poetry reviews or news reports after events).

5122:

Hi Anne Delong, I stumbled upon a discussion of this article, "somewhere" and have taken the liberty of starting an "infobox". Do you happen to know Méndez place of birth? Thanks. Regards,

3223: 4140:

Hey Anne, have seen that you are quite active at the AFC. Great work there! I just had a quick question. So anybody who has received a very important award is notable, right? What about

2395:, there was already an existing "Decon Records" with a history. I couldn't see a way to put it together, so I had to make another. I'll see if I can replace some of the discogs refs. — 3672: 1827:

editors by removing their reasons for recommending deletion. In this case, though, your confrontational approach has managed to alienate everyone, so you will have to do it yourself.

1141: 972: 3367:

It looks to like my problems with AFD might kill off my chance to get the mop. The Opposers are even using my "mea culpa" posts against me – which I find more than a bit distasteful.

1605:

these up. If they need to be linked on the page, then that would be great, but calling the page into question is inappropriate as my creds are in line with many other poets' pages:

1213:

By the way: Don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~); it only takes a moment, and it's important to help others communicate with you. Also, please remember to add

5313:, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. 2839:– thank you both! I did use Highbeam for this article as you may have noticed. I was slightly shanghaied into the GA review but I think it'll be a good experience. Again, thanks. 5082: 4462:

Glad you enjoyed it. I have listened to several audio books which he has narrated, but I borrowed them from the library, conveniently located within three blocks of my home. —

2265: 170:

Hello, thank you for your help with the Blitzkid page. Very helpful, very appreciated. Bluegrass huh? I'm going to check that out... after I get done with this project, lol.

3646: 2060:

is clearly notable. Aside from the current references, and the fact that the label has signed multiple notable acts, there is also an additional Billboard profile at

1456: 452: 3761:

about 3 weeks ago. We currently don't have record of your response on the Google form. Please make sure to follow the instructions in that email for obtaining access,

2733:

not just as it relates to the developing page on me as a writer, but overall, for the whole shebang! I have so much more respect for the Wiki process than I had.

2729:

in touch and said I should go look at the page and look at what you and someone names Carrite had been doing in not just the discussion, but to the page itself.

4825:

I agree. That's why I posted them here so that you can use them as citations if you rewrite the article with new text written especially for Knowledge (XXG). —

1217:

when you edit articles or talk pages; these are an important because they show how articles developed, and what topics are being discussed on the talk pages. —

4656:

Hi, Thanks for your support in my past contribution. I'm really trying to sharpen my skills. Can you please give me your view on this draft i'm yet to submit:

2154: 2105: 5051: 5039: 190:

the decision will look at it or not. How does it work, is it necessarily going to be FoCusandLeArN again? I'm not sure he is sympathetic to my efforts, haha.

5191: 3707:

Since the work has been done, keep it in incubation. If she does something in the next few years, it could be useful. All we would have to do is tag on a

3278: 2650: 1411: 775: 1727: 1110: 4254: 3571:

far I find NPP work to be trivially easy compared to AFC reviewing – which IMHO is far too easily dismissed as insignificant by uninformed commentators.

2480: 2207: 3187:. If the article is declined again, I recommend that you take whatever information has good sources and is appropriate and create a section in the 527:. So often these pairs suitable for merging sit around for ages before someone takes an interest. Rather than delete the draft, I have moved it to 4792: 770: 5316:

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

3136: 4259: 5352:

Thanks for everything you do on languishing classical music articles-to-be. The Selectric was awesome, especially in its back-spacing avatar.

1838:

Step three: Remove any text which is praise of any kind unless it is attributed to a reviewer, or is intended to promote yourself or your work.

750:. It's often the case that closely connected editors find it very difficult or even impossible to write as though they were a neutral party. — 5604:

idea. I had a similar experience when I first became an OTRS agent. It felt strange to be entrusted to take actions with very little training.

5310: 5298: 1847: 481:

instead (as it is in the French version of the article). Riazuelo was editing that article during the controversy in 2005 but was not part of

5452: 5440: 5187: 3274: 2646: 1407: 477:

I saw your question on the noticeboard and added a comment to the article saying that he isn't well enough known and the material belongs in

5531: 5461: 5456:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 5060: 5055:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 4985:

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

4802:

I can't return any of the text that was on the Julliard website, but here is the one sentence and discography that were separately written:

4634: 4629:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 3838: 3833:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 3798: 3793:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 3548: 3543:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 3441: 3436:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2881: 2876:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2609: 2604:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2600: 2588: 1508: 1503:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 1499: 1487: 1254: 1249:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 1207: 1170: 1165:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 909:

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

841: 836:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 571: 566:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 672: 3598:

Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for. I'll watch out for the different tags, I've become very used to Twinkle over years of use.

4451:

Turns out Ellison is an excellent narrator, at least in volume 1, and I've just queued up 2 and 3. Priciest AfC for me to date. ;-) --

4166:. What you say is true, although there can be disagreement as to what constitutes a notable award. I presume that you are referring to 1115: 3539: 3527: 1771: 1370: 5180:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

4920:

and here are some sources that may or may not be useful – depending on whether they have information about Mr. Zeger; I didn't check:

4533: 4092: 3901: 3092: 1760: 1317: 376:. I'm glad that you have successfully run the gauntlet! Maybe you can pay it forward by helping out another beginner stuck in the 5457: 5056: 4630: 4625: 4613: 3834: 3794: 3631:

Good point about expanding the variety of my activities – it's just so easy to get into a rut and then even get comfortable in it!

3544: 3437: 2877: 2605: 1504: 1250: 1166: 837: 567: 1954:. In researching Carl, I found that Peter had written simply elegant prose about him. Sadly I didn't get a chance to meet him. – 5637: 1858: 377: 262: 94: 86: 5447: 5046: 4620: 4529: 4088: 3897: 3824: 3784: 3534: 3427: 3088: 2867: 2595: 1651: 1494: 1313: 1240: 1156: 827: 557: 5385: 1908:

with 1,115 names. (Actually these counts are not accurate because of how editors categorize different pages. My favorite poet,

1551: 589: 355:"long complicated" piece in the encyclopedia... I was not headed in that direction prior to your help. Thank you very much! :) 258: 81: 69: 64: 59: 5003:

code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia

927:

code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia

5184:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 4729: 4681: 3271:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2643:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1404:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 993: 2785: 4808:(born May 6, 1957) is an American pianist, educator, artistic administrator and broadcaster. He is known primarily as an 4489: 4218: 4194: 4152: 1901: 4515: 1733: 1728:

http://www.connotationpress.com/a-poetry-congeries-with-john-hoppenthaler/2010/february-2010/307-laura-mccullough-poetry

1697: 1161: 1149: 1111:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Chase+Bank+says+Mexico+memo+%27not+policy.%27%28consultant+Riordan+Roett%27s...-a016732834

776:

http://www.iadb.org/en/research-and-data/alessandro-rebucci-principal-research-economist,6351.html?au_id=1071&bios=n

562: 550: 1100: 903: 885: 5085:

is looking decent now. If you want to move what you have now to the mainspace, just let me know and I can finish it. -

4893: 4255:

http://citybookreview.com/forks-a-quest-for-culture-cuisine-and-connection-three-years-five-continents-one-motorcycle/

3691: 2576: 2539: 2506: 2458: 2369: 2346: 2291: 2233: 2176: 2123: 2079: 2002: 1075: 646: 623: 615: 605: 597: 5181: 803:). I guess there are three options: fix it, delete it or tag it for the "copyright problems" people to deal with. — 5010:

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:

2523:

This is notable, was re-submitted to AfC, but I have just declined again because I feel it is promotional in tone.

934:

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:

5566: 5510: 5392:, for rescuing articles and for your tireless effort around articles for creation, discussing, moving articles and 4314: 3263:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

2631:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1464: 1388:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1245: 1233: 38: 3230: 5389: 4750: 3399:

Don't give up. You've been here for quite some time and your positive actions definitely speak for themselves.

1979: 1972: 1905: 438: 4240: 4214: 4190: 4163: 4148: 3208:

Hi Anne, thank you for taking the time to review the article. Your comments and input are always appreciated.

1401: 865:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/June 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive#We need a conclusion

722: 666: 4260:

http://traveleater.net/2013/09/23/fab-new-book-forks-a-quest-for-culture-cuisine-and-connection-by-allan-karl/

3592: 2918: 1744: 1634: 4504: 4325:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

3213: 3007:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

2929:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

2872: 2860: 1897: 1374: 1080: 1070: 690: 510: 490: 404: 360: 331: 209: 175: 160: 152: 5327: 4717: 4669: 3758: 3750: 3404: 1660: 1614: 1539: 981: 337: 5534:

was declined in August 2013, and was still being developed in a promotional way (it's still around) until

5416: 5285: 4979: 4961: 3975: 2684: 1581: 642: 619: 601: 5326:

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at

5004: 928: 736: 718: 662: 5654: 5562: 5551: 5520: 5506: 5145: 5113: 4950: 4830: 4768:

notability to be resolved, but I'd already put significant work into it and I'd rather not lose it all.

4704: 4467: 4442: 4404: 4285: 4175: 4141: 4020: 3737: 3654: 3621: 3495: 3390: 3338: 3196: 3148: 2822: 2750: 2486:

Having a hard time finding information on this label, if anything the information should be merged into

2433: 2400: 2313: 2305: 2252: 2214: 2194: 2141: 2102: 2036: 2018: 1940: 1882: 1868: 1794: 1590: 1222: 1126: 1085: 808: 755: 536: 460: 389: 273: 47: 17: 2764:

Hi Anne, I hope this isn't in breach of anything but would it be possible to fast forward a review for

1851: 1056:

unsuitable references and replacing them with better ones would make a big improvement in the article.

969:

i was hoping you could help on this article i have been trying to get approval on for over a year now.

681: 381: 246: 3400: 2746: 1790: 1116:

http://journalchretien.net/190-israel/5815-le-nigeria-s-attaque-a-l-eradication-de-la-pauvrete?lang=fr

1095: 5635: 5613: 5338: 4819:

Certainly the citations and links to reviews and articles have nothing to do with the Juilliard bio?

4788: 4778: 4774: 4746: 4660: 4657: 4601: 4566: 4455: 4429: 4377: 4358: 4274: 3857: 3467:(the part that goes on to discuss AfC and NPP, paying particular attention to the long posting by 3176: 3163: 3159: 3037: 2972: 2765: 1959: 1925: 1772:

http://www.blacklawrence.com/title-as-invitation-poetry-contests-as-dinner-party-by-laura-mccullough/

1666: 1203: 434: 4269: 2031:, who made the only overlapping edit between the two pages, and who has performed a history merge. — 1724: 1703: 1674: 1065: 4033: 4012: 3995: 3883: 3789: 3777: 3716: 3241: 1983: 1776: 1752: 1643: 1547: 5320: 5199: 5105: 3708: 3234: 2959:(Rome, Italy), Jornada Musical Xalapa (Mexico), Premier Orchestral Institute (MS), Northern Lights 1761:

http://www.sierranevada.edu/academics/humanities-social-sciences/creative-writing-mfa/mfa-faculty/

698: 5159: 5127: 5090: 4725: 4677: 4421:

leave an early impression on me, it was quite a change from what I'd been reading up until then..

4167: 4037: 3999: 3636: 3603: 3576: 3372: 3209: 3048: 2711: 1640: 989: 873: 524: 506: 486: 400: 373: 356: 327: 223: 205: 171: 156: 5374: 3264: 1623: 5578:

I'm aware of your qy earlier today, but I need to check, and I will deal with it tomorrow.

4345:(BMI) collects license fees on behalf of the more than 600,000 songwriters, composers and music 2953:

in music festivals such as Schlern Music Festival (Schlern, Italy), International Lyric Academy

1611: 1206:. I'm not sure than I can explain it any more simply than just following the numbered steps at 1042:

11 – partly good; in an interview only the words of the interviewer are independent journalism

5535: 5494: 5483: 5469: 5412: 5281: 5237: 5068: 4865: 4642: 4126: 4048: 3968: 3935: 3846: 3806: 3556: 3513: 3476: 3464: 3449: 3353: 3317: 3294: 3074: 2889: 2666: 2617: 2557: 2189:

I will delete this when it becomes eligible for db-g13 later this month, if no one edits it. —

1516: 1427: 1262: 1214: 1178: 1090: 849: 800: 579: 5501:

is protected from creation. I can't figure out who to ask about this since I don't see it in

3180: 1709: 1652:

http://nanofiction.org/weekly-feature/interviews/2013/10/five-questions-with-laura-mccullough

5650: 5547: 5357: 5141: 5109: 5028: 4946: 4826: 4700: 4463: 4438: 4400: 4281: 4171: 4074: 4016: 3829: 3817: 3766: 3733: 3650: 3617: 3491: 3386: 3334: 3249: 3192: 3188: 3144: 2844: 2832: 2818: 2773: 2429: 2396: 2309: 2248: 2190: 2137: 2032: 2014: 1936: 1878: 1864: 1784: 1781: 1715: 1706: 1637: 1586: 1449: 1442: 1218: 1122: 952: 832: 820: 804: 751: 532: 456: 385: 269: 5625: 4975: 4796: 3964: 3960: 3711:

notable accomplishment. If she hasn't improved by then, its probably not going to happen.

3309: 3238: 3184: 2700: 1820: 1663: 1105: 899: 747: 5630: 5629:

work and what areas they get involved with. An "admin teahouse" sounds like a great idea.

5608: 5446: