User talk:Anne Delong

Archives

Dec 2012 Jan-Mar 2013 Apr-Jun 2013 Jul-Sep 2013 Oct-Dec 2013 Jan-Mar 2014 Apr-Jun 2014 Jul-Sep 2014 Oct-Dec 2014 Jan-Mar 2015 Apr-Jun 2015 Jul-Sep 2015 Oct-Dec 2015 Jan-Mar 2016 Apr-Jun 2016 Jul-Sep 2016 Oct-Dec 2016 Jan-Mar 2017 Apr-Jun 2017 Jul-Sep 2017 Oct-Dec 2017 Jan-Mar 2018 Apr-Jun 2018 Jul-Sep 2018 Oct-Dec 2018 Jan-Mar 2019

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Technical news

• In Special:Preferences under "Appearance" → "Advanced options", there is now an option to show a confirmation prompt when clicking on a rollback link.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee clarified that the General 1RR prohibition for Palestine-Israel articles may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice.

Miscellaneous

• Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
• As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.

---

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paul Atherton. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anne Delong,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Poseidon Asset Management for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This week is the 6 year Anniversary of your Editor of the Week Award. Glad to see you are still committed to improving the Encyclopedia. ―Buster7 ☎ 15:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:Buster7. It doesn't seem that long.—Anne Delong (talk) 04:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Steven Beitashour. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gavin McInnes. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anne, thank you for your feedback with this draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Craig_Simmons Some changes were made based on your comments. Not all of the references could be replaced with independent sources, but all of the important research related ones have. Do you think the page can move forward to being published or do you think there's more work to be done? AhmadKml (talk) 07:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AhmadKml. The changes that you made are positive ones. The draft still needs work. Part of the reason that you had trouble finding independent references for some information is that the draft is written more from an inside perspective than as a neutral encyclopedia article. The emphasis should be on what Prof. Simmons has actually done, rather than on what he is inspired to do and what his and his team's goals and aims are (those things belong perhaps in a magazine interview or promotional material for his department). There is often a big difference between what a person would like others to know about themselves and what journalists and independent academic writers have found interesting enough to write about, and its the latter that is wanted in the encyclopedia.

I removed the direct links to his own publications from the body of the article; that's against Wikipedia policy. I also left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine for a more expert opinion, since I know very little about Prof. Simmons area of research.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ainu languages. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing Anne Delong a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Coffeesweet (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making Wikipedia a better place! :-) :-)

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Technical news

• XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

• In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
• Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
• A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.

---

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Country data New Caledonia. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am in the process of asking for those interested in mandolins to comment. I am one whose additions to the mandolin article have made it too long. Since you worked on the Bluegrass mandolin article, perhaps you might have input? Although I would rather leave the mandolin article intact, I have created two spinoffs from some of its content, the Mandolins in the United States and History of the mandolin. Would you be willing to give opinion? Sincerely, Jacqke (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment on the mandolin article. You made me think of another question-subject. I have no sources dealing with Canadian bluegrass or other music, so have stayed away from writing about it. I'll have to investigate now. Do you think a joint Canada-US article would work? As to North America, I definitely need to see if the mandolin has a significant presence in Mexico, but suspect the bandurria completely fills that niche. Thanks, Jacqke (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jacqke. There's less info about Canadian than American mandolin stuff, because the population is smaller, but there is some: Mandolin Society of Peterborough, Toronto Mandolin Orchestra, the Mandolin Orchestra of Niagara, various mandolinists (Willie P. Bennett, Rex Yetman, Ray Legere, Shari Ulrich, Andrew Collins), luthiers (Michael Heiden, Garrison Guitars, Godin), etc. Both the Central Canadian Bluegrass Awards festival([1]) and the Eastern Canada Bluegrass Music Awards present an annual "Mandolin player of the year" award. The genres are similar to the US, which is why a combined article might make sense. If mandolins aren't played much in Mexico, a short section noting that would do.—Anne Delong (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Order of the Arrow. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Rfc. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, which new record did he set here? Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pelmeen10. I was unable to read which record because the source on Google Books only had "snippet view". However, the French Wikipedia had the information, so, assuming that it is correct I added it to the English article.—Anne Delong (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still not clear if world record, European record, Championship record, national record or personal best (last one seems to be the case per French wiki). Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Maybe someone more sports-knowledgeable can find out.—Anne Delong (talk) 04:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bond 25. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alexander the Great in the Quran. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Over at the Teahouse we're having a bit of a 'spring clean' by removing inactive entries from the list of Hosts. As you don't appear to have been active there for the last couple of years, your 'host profile' has been removed from the list. But please don't let that put you off contributing again in the future - either by signing back up as a Host to assist on regular basis, or just dropping in whenever you fancy helping out.

Thank you for all your past help and support for new users at the Teahouse. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
• An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
• An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

• The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
• Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

• The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
• The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.

---

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tulsi Gabbard. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What'd ya know? Turns out I WAS your student. I hope you won't be disappointed with the work I have been doing since we last talked here. Anyway, I've been working on this article. I came this far without consulting anyone because I was sure I could find a/some place/s to merge the content to if people don't like it as an article. But, now, I need to ask, because I want to publish it and then continue working on it. Didn't feel like asking anyone else before you. The specific problem is: It looks too much like a list and also not enough like a list. Thanks! Usedtobecool ^TALK 12:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Usedtobecool. This is not a topic I know anything about, but there seems to be enough written about it to support an article. I do have some suggestions: First, the statement that superstition is "pervasive" is rather strong and will need a couple of authoritative references. Then saying that this has led to the witch hunts is drawing a conclusion, so that would also need to be attributed to an expert. There may be references out there, or it might be simpler to just write "However, there are many cases each year of people being persecuted as witches in Nepal" or something like that. The sentence about more reporting rather than more incidents should also have a reference, because it's important to know if it's true.

I agree that the list of incidents is a larger part of the article than it should be. If there really are many incidents every year, the article shouldn't try to include all of them or it would be very long; instead, use some as examples, and then say something like "similar incidents happened in the villages of X, Y and Z" and so on. The format you have chosen emphasizes the dates when the incidents happened, which is not actually the important part of the information. It would be less list-like if the sub-section headings were removed and the paragraphs just put all in one section - that's just my opinion, though.

The balance between cases and general information could be improved by added more to the rest of the article to put the incidents in perspective. For example, have the government or the police made any statements or taken any general actions to discourage or prevent these incidents? Are there any laws related to it? Do the incidents happen more frequently in urban or rural areas? Are there international efforts, protests or discussions?

Here's a person who has written a play about it: [2] [3]

Here's an article by a person who has studied witch accusation in Nepal: [4]

There are a couple of pages in this book that have information that may be relevant: [5]

Here's an article which says witch persecution is part of a larger problem in institutionalize violence against women:[6]

Here's one about a local government initiative: [7]

I hope this is helpful. I will be camping in an internet-free zone for several days starting tomorrow, so I won't be able to reply again until Monday.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... Aaand, I'm back! @Anne Delong: I'd like to think I took heed of most of your suggestions if not all. I have moved the article to mainspace. I did end up making that article about the broader topic as you suggested. But I decided against turning the incidents' list into prose, until I had a lot more incidents to write about. I think I have now. So, I've decided to write a prose section about major incidents and move around the sections to turn it into a proper article. I will cut the list that is there into a draft, add a dozen more incidents and publish a separate list article as the main article for the prose section of incidents (after it gets out of the DYK process; resisting major change until that is resolved, one way or another). Anyway, that's that. The reason I came knocking is a different one.

I have decided to work on Nepal, referring to India and Switzerland for guidance. It's almost abandoned, so I don't expect to encounter a lot of disruption. I recently completed rewriting the Etymology which can be found at Nepal#Etymology. I feel like it's too long. What I've written is almost the complete story but it can be expanded to perhaps about double the size if it were to be a stand-alone article. While it feels too long, there's also the fact that all other examples I referred to talked about definitive etymologies while mine's about about 900 years of debate. I was wondering if you could give it a read and share your thoughts. Options to consider:

1. Moving it to a stand-alone article and expanding it with all the details, while only giving the etymologies proper in the current article without all the background info.
2. The current version is fine, as it's only slightly longer than those of countries with non-controversial etymologies.
3. No matter how long the debate has been, etymology of a term doesn't deserve a standalone article, neither does it deserve so many words in this article, so cut the crap from this version and forget the rest (might require a helping hand).

Thanks!

P.S. You can say so if you wish to no longer continue the Guru-shishya relationship. I am very amicable, and understand the changing nature of goals and interests of a person over time. I absolutely wouldn't want to be imposing. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 20:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Usedtobecool. Sorry to take so long to reply - no internet at the cottage. I took a look at the Etymology section and it's informative, and I think long enough. (Consider WP:NOTDIC). When I am considering adding to an article, I ask myself, what are the readers looking for when they begin to read it? Chances are they want to know things like: Where is Nepal? What are the climate and terrain like? What countries are nearby? What is the main religion? What products and serves are produced? Where are the main cities, and how does one get there? Most readers won't be familiar with the term "etymology".

About making a stand-alone article: consider that anyone wanting more detail than what you already have there (and some of that appears to be speculation) can go and read one or more of the scholarly works you've cited. (You've done a good job of making it clear that it's other people, not Wikipedia, proposing theories of possible origins.) Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be summaries, not long and exhaustive treatments of a subject. In this case it looks like even the scholars don't know for sure, so as you write more, the balance tips toward speculation and theories as opposed to established facts.

However, remember that this is just one opinion - I personally like adding straightforward, factual information - others enjoy adding peripheral and corroborating material. And you aren't imposing - most people like giving advice - and likewise after you read it you are free to disregard it.—Anne Delong (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll leave the matter as is for now, then. We'll see how it naturally evolves from here. I might get back to it when the rest of the article is up to acceptable standards. Hopefully, by then, I'll be a bit more older and wiser to look at it with a better perspective. Thanks as always! P.S. I still can't believe I didn't see that comma after the "Before", in so many readings of it. LMAO! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 08:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electric smoking system. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electric smoking system. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam¹ • Flyguy649 • Fram² • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe

¹Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

²Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.

• In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

• The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
• The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
• A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

• In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.

---

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Legobot (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rusyns. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hessy Levinsons Taft. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
• A request for comment (permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.

Arbitration

• Editors may now use the template {{Ds/aware}} to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.

Miscellaneous

• Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
• The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

---

Hi Anne! I hope that you're well. I remember your name from your AfC-related posts at WT:MED. Now that AfC appears on the article alerts, I was thinking of taking a bite at some anatomy-related ones. I haven't reviewed any before and want to make sure I'm up to scratch in terms of my reviewing style. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind being pinged in a little bit (maybe a week or two) and having you have a look at my work when I've reviewed some?

Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Tom (LT). I've gotten away from AfC lately, but have been meaning to get back to it. I will do my best. However, in the summer I am sometimes involved in activities which take me away from the internet for a day or two, so you may not receive a reply right away. Also bear in mind that I don't know anything about anatomy!—Anne Delong (talk) 12:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :), will contact you then! --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done! I reviewed Skin temperature and Epididymis evolution from reptiles to mammals and accepted both. I ran a manual copyvio check on Skin temperature (ie copy into google) and then remembered to do Earwig's one on the second one. Both are well cited and have text that is intelligible. To me they are well within the bounds of normal articles that we see around here and had no major issues that stopped them being accepted. I added relevant Wikiprojects and then tagged both articles. Would you mind having a look and then letting me know what you think about them and how I've managed them? It's quite exciting to learn a new Wiki-skill; once I get the hang of it I can deploy it more readily in the future. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tom (LT). I took a look at the two articles, and I agree that they shouldn't be kept in AfC any longer. The "Skin temperature" looks pretty good. The other one needs a lot of work to change it from something suitable for an academic journal into an article which an ordinary educated reader would find informative. I can see why you checked twice for copyright issues - having a complete article plopped into AfC in one edit by an unregistered user is unusual. However, the needed changes are more likely to happen in mainspace than in AfC, so you were right to promote it. Good work!—Anne Delong (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eid al-Adha. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ilhan Omar. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Witch-hunts in Nepal, the article you helped me with, was featured at DYK on the main page yesterday and got almost 10,000 views! Needless to say, I'm over the moon! Thank you very much for your guidance and continued support! गुरुर्ब्रह्मा ग्रुरुर्विष्णुः गुरुर्देवो महेश्वरः । गुरुः साक्षात् परं ब्रह्म तस्मै श्री गुरवे नमः ॥ Usedtobecool ✉ ✨ 19:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, Usedtobecool. You picked an interesting topic and did quite a bit of fact-finding. It's nice to have your work appreciated, isn't it?.—Anne Delong (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

-- Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 23:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Signature Bank. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Emerson, Lake & Palmer. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am a professor working on bluegrass topics and am leading my students in editing articles about bluegrass musicians. I am arriving late to your call for more work on bluegrass-related wikipedia articles, but figured I would say "hi"!Bidgoodl (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bidgoodl. At the time I got very little response to my initiative to co-ordinate work on bluegrass articles. I had hoped to create a WikiProject, but there wasn't enough interest. I still work on them from time to time. It's sometimes difficult because so much of bluegrass is grass-roots-based rather than industry-driven, and the publications tend to be short-lived, not digitized and hard to find. I wish you and your students well in this endeavor.—Anne Delong (talk) 04:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

Bradv • Chetsford • Izno

Floquenbeam • Lectonar

DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

• Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
• The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous

• A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

---

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Greek language. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Calvin Cheng. Legobot (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anne! Guess you are having a better day than I am? I just want to ask a question. My reviewer is on wikibreak and will like my article reviewed before resubmitting. How do I go about it?Dee 12:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duthperod (talk • contribs) [reply]

Hello Dee. The whole purpose of resubmitting is to get a review; however, I will comment: I see that you have shortened the draft, and that's a good thing. Information in an encyclopedia should be a summary of what has been published by journalists and other authors who are independent of the subject - The longer the draft, the more difficult it is to back up the information in it with reliable independent sources. There is still a lot of unsubstantiated content. Also, Wikipedia can't include opinions (such as "The Grubbs's work contributed to the exponential growth of Raytheon....") unless they are attributed to a knowledgeable expert. The link in the text to his wife's website will need to be removed, as per Wikipedia policy of no external links in the body of an article.

My analysis of the references: (1) Obituary: This appears to be a family-placed obituary. If this is a well-known person, there should be obituaries written by journalists, perhaps in business journals. It would be better to cite these.

(2) Desert Warrior: Although this is a "personal view", it does support that Grubbs was Raytheon's general manager, and that's a plain fact, so that's okay.

(3) Anything but Ordinary: This has been written by the subject himself, and so shouldn't be used as a reference - It could be added to a section at the end called "Further Reading".

(4)The Richest Man: This appears to be a book written by a journalist, a good reference. However, the paragraph it supports isn't written in a neutral way, and it's not clear. It shouldn't say what Grubbs thought, just what he did. Phrases like "world-renowned", "the timing was perfect", and "blossomed" aren't suitable, and it doesn't actually say what the rich man did. After the first sentence, the rest could all be replaced with "They decided to befriend Adnan Khashoggi, who had become wealthy acting as an agent in the oil and arms businesses." or something like that.

(5) "Improved Hawk for Saudi Arabia": I didn't load this, because my browser said "Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead". However, the two paragraphs in the section that it supports are mostly not about Grubbs, but are instead a history lesson about the Saudi economy - I'm sure there's already an article about that. It could all be replaced with one sentence, something like "In 1972 Grubbs, along with Raytheon President/CEO Tom Philips, and Raytheon Senior Vice President of Marketing Phil Phalen, worked out a proposal to sell between $400 million and $800 million in Hawk Missiles to the Saudi Arabian government."

(6) Milestone pact: This article in the NY Times doesn't appear to mention Grubbs at all. It's a good source for the fact that the contract was signed, but leaves unsupported all of the details of Grubbs' role.

(7) SECRET: - This is a discussion of whether the contract should have military advisors, and doesn't support any of the information in the paragraph, which is mostly not about Grubbs anyway.

(8) Whittaker and (9) Firm's success: These are not about Grubbs and don't mention him. The section about his role in the company is unsubstantiated.

(10) Litton and (11) SEC: These are not about Grubbs and don't mention him. The long involved paragraphs they are linked to are mostly not about him either. After the first sentence, the rest could be replaced with something simpler, such as: "Litton experienced an on-going problem in providing a sufficient inventory of spare parts; at the suggestion of his friend Khalid, Litton hired Grubbs as program manager in 1986 to resolve the issue, which he was able to do after several years of work."

(11) Informal: This doesn't say who made the remarks or if Grubbs was present; it's not a published document. It doesn't support any of the information in the paragraph, which has a lot of opinion and is more suitable for a memoir than an encyclopedia and needs serious trimming.

Okay, I hope that helps. Please focus the article on what Grubbs did, not who his friends were or what else was going on in the world, and try to find news reports or magazine features that tell about his life to use as references.—Anne Delong (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anne for taking your time to go through the article, it means a lot to me. I have worked on your suggestion and will like your take on it again.Dee 20:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duthperod (talk • contribs) [reply]

Thank you once again, can I go ahead now to resubmit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duthperod (talk • contribs) 12:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duthperod, please wait a bit - I will write back to you with some further information, but am having a busy time in my off-wiki life right now and don't have time tonight.—Anne Delong (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Dee, now I have a bit of time. The draft of the article has reasonable content now. There's still one serious issue that could prevent it from being accepted if you submit it. Wikipedia has inclusion criteria - see Wikipedia:Notability (people). Since Wikipedia contributors are not necessarily experts in the subjects of the articles they are editing, they depend on those who are - in this case journalists, business analysts and historians who aren't friends, relatives or co-workers of the subject - to determine what information should be in the encyclopedia.

The references that you have included show that Mr. Grubbs was a business executive, and that he was friends with a rich man, and that Saudi royal family members liked him and didn't blame him for problems in his company. However, the criteria specifically state that having a relationship with or being associated with a famous person is not a justification for a stand-alone article. What's needed are news reports, historical analysis, articles in business journals or magazines that cover international affairs, etc., which state specifically what he did and why it was important. The references of this type that you've included mostly don't mention him at all. I spent some time looking on the internet and was unable to find anything, although of course not all content is freely available on line. I fear that if you submit the draft with these references, it will be rejected again.

If this happens, and you are unable to find stronger references, you may consider adding to the existing pages about the Hawk missile, Litton Industries, or Raytheon, where he is not mentioned. A single reference is all that's needed to add to an article.

You have put a lot of work into this, and you may also consider posting your more extensive earlier version on another website that isn't an encyclopedia. (see http://turndog.co/2014/10/28/14-free-platforms-to-share-your-short-stories-online/ "14 Free Platforms To Share Your Short Stories Online"] —Anne Delong (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Delong Thanks Anne, I will resubmit the article and see what happens. If it's regretted again then I will have to go with your suggestion which is adding it to an existing page.Dee 14:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Same-sex marriage. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

• As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

• The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
• The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous

• The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

---

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:BMW 3 Series (E36). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anne Delong please reply this message is from mcelite. Thank you for your time.2600:1700:E5D0:CC30:AD0B:DAA8:B11A:B813 (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello mcelite.

I received your e-mail, but I prefer not to discuss Wikipedia business off-wiki, so this is my only reply. You were legitimately blocked for using multiple accounts to try to get around Wikipedia's policies. The admins who made this decision spent time looking into the matter carefully and were previously uninvolved. According to WP:SOCKBLOCK, you should now wait six months or so, and then make an unblock request without blaming relatives or anyone else, and explaining why Wikipedia would benefit from your edits, and promising not to make other editors and admins, who would rather get on with adding neutral facts and sources to the encyclopedia, spend their time dealing with sockpuppetry or edit warring instead. Not being able to edit Wikipedia in the meantime may be disappointing, but certainly not "terrifying", and saying so won't help convince anyone that you are a reasonable person who can follow the policies.

About the other editor you mentioned in your e-mail: he/she is not the reason you were blocked. Don't worry; there are tens of thousands of editors; if some inappropriate edits are made, someone will fix them eventually. If there's disagreement about the edits, Wikipedia has plenty of accepted dispute resolution mechanisms, such as Wikipedia:Third opinion and Wikipedia:Requests for comment.

Please do something else for a few months before making another unblock request.—Anne Delong (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anne, thank you very much for replying it means a lot. I accept my punishment even though yes it's hard because I want to do more. I just wanted to show that I didn't just start trouble to just to be difficult and that I'm not blaming Corbie for my block. I did want to show what Corbie was doing so it could be brought to the attention of others. I made a serious mistake and I know apologizing right now won't change my current standing. Again thank you for your response and time.2600:1700:E5D0:CC30:C571:DBCD:3C38:8C99 (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sabine Weyand. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anne, hello again! I want to write an article about this incident. It is notable as it has historic implications both politically and otherwise. It also has SIGCOV to support content. I think I can take it cautiously enough with WP:BLP open in the other tab. My concern is, whether the very idea of an article is improper or TOOSOON as, all the sigcov notwithstanding, the accusation itself still remains just that. Would it be WP:GOSSIP to create an article before the crime is proven, considering the SIGCOV is mostly focused on the alleged perpetrator, rather than the victim? Etcetera. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 14:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Usedtobecool. If reliable sources have reported the arrest, then it is not gossip, as long as only the facts in the sources are summarized. However, I don't see why this incident would need an article separate from the article that already exists about Krishna Bahadur Mahara. It's only because he is a well-known person that the incident is in the news. I suggest that instead you start a section about the incident near the end of his article, being very careful not to add any speculation, only reported facts. Even if he is later convicted, mistreatment of women is unfortunately all too common, so unless there is something particularly unusual about the case, a few sentences in the existing article are probably enough. The text can always be moved to a separate article later in the unlikely case where the story expands beyond him (if, for example, investigators find a pattern of mistreatment involving other officials).—Anne Delong (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ariana Grande discography. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cultural impact of the Beatles. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Propaganda. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).