User talk:Zxm92

Hello, Zxm92. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Annabelle Long, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red | September 2025, Vol 11, Issue 9, Nos. 326, 327, 347, 348, 349 Recognized as the most active, topic-based WikiProject by human changes. Online events: New: Alphabet run Q & R | Women writers & their works | Microstates Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Wikipedia:Developing Countries WikiContest runs 1 July 2025 until 30 September 2025 Tip of the Month: Researching historical women writers who used pseudonyms requires careful investigation across multiple sources, as many women adopted pen names to avoid gender bias and judgment (e.g., being labeled a bluestocking) and, ultimately, to get published. Progress ("moving the needle"): The WikiProject Women in Red homepage is usually updated weekly, using the Humaniki tool. Sadly, Humaniki has been out of action since 23 June. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hey, I saw you made some edits on Y Combinator page and wondered if you would be kind enough to review and possibly accept my draft Draft:South_Park_Commons. Thanks! Saphelion (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving. I highly recommend you submit the article for review through the Articles for Creation process and get feedback from more experienced new article reviewers. (See here for reference.)

In my view, there are some issues related to WP:NPOV. A more experienced reviewer can advise on this.

As a side note, I'm not suggesting you used AI, but I have noticed that AI likes to write sentences similar to this one in your article: "It has been described by technology publications as an "anti-incubator" due to its focus on individual talent rather than specific business ideas."

The reason I find these problematic is because it says "technology publications" (plural) yet it only includes a single citation from one outlet (in this case, TechCrunch). (And based on this article from Business Insider, it reads to me that the firm calls itself an "anti-incubator" rather than reporters describing it that way.) Zxm92 (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Zxm92, I am working to update the page of Lux Capital, an NYC based Venture Capital firm. I posted some suggestions here: Talk:Lux Capital#Suggested edits for the History Section. Since you are a member of WikiProject Private Equity, I thought you might be interested in having a look. Another editor pointed out that some of the sources are paywalled, so for convenience I have included direct quotes that can be found here: Talk:Lux Capital#Revision proposal 2

Thanks, NazLux (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Zxm92, thanks for adding the wikilink to the Lux Capital page. Have you had a chance to review my request here? Thanks! NazLux (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I took a look, and while some of the individual facts may be verifiable, I’d be more comfortable with an experienced editor addressing your request. To me, the article reads a bit like a stub with an oversized directory-style list, and adding a set of (mostly) positive, selective details before the page has a more standard structure and balance risks coming across as promotional, even if sourced.

I’d like a more experienced editor weighing in first, both on restructuring the page and on whether any of your requested items merit brief, neutrally worded inclusion. (I think at least some of them likely will.)

Just my two cents: I’d expand the lead (per MOS:LEAD) and maybe reorganize History into a few chronological subsections. After that, it will be easier to assess what, if anything, from your proposal fits.

Another way I look this: If someone is looking for a genuine encyclopedic entry on your firm, what information would they expect to find, and can then currently find it in this version of the article? To me, the answer is no. And I’d like that answer to be yes before looking to include details like a high-profile individual who joined. Zxm92 (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Zxm92! I see that you reverted my edits and I see the rationale. To be sincere, I am a little upset that my work was in vain. Since those sources are valid, do you think a simple one sentence listing substantial investments in 2020-2025 will suffice? I can research more to find other deals, and simply list them separated by comma. What do you think? DaffyJZ (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @DaffyJZ - thanks for the thoughtful note, and I'm sorry the revert landed as wasted effort. The underlying question you raise is a fair one, and it reaches further than your specific edit.

The heart of it sits with the "Notable investments" section as a whole. WP:NOTDIRECTORY asks articles to avoid becoming an indiscriminate listing of an organization's transactions. A firm the size of Hillhouse Investment has made hundreds of investments. The section has grown into a long roster, much of it resting on single deal announcements — so your instinct (these deals are listed, why not these others?) points to a real inconsistency already in the article.

A clear example of that inconsistency: Baidu appears in this article's own lead, sourced, as one of Hillhouse's prominent holdings, yet it has no entry under "Notable investments." Meanwhile Little Freddie, a niche baby-food brand, has one. Selections like that suggest the section grew by accretion, with each deal added when a press release happened to be handy, rather than by any consistent measure of significance. That is the WP:DUE / WP:PROPORTION concern in concrete form — the list should reflect the weight independent sources assign, and right now it doesn't track that at all.

On your specific proposal, the core question stays open, namely which deals belong and on what basis. The word "substantial" is where I'd gently push back, since it would set a size threshold that we as editors would be choosing, which drifts toward WP:OR (and that's another reason I don't like the section titled "Notable Investments"). I'd anchor inclusion instead to the significance independent secondary sources assign.

The test I'd suggest is that a deal earns a place when independent secondary sources cover it in depth and over time, with analysis of what the deal meant and changed beyond the announcement. WP:CORPDEPTH treats routine deal announcements as coverage that carries little weight, which fits entries built from a single news item. Please also see WP:CORPTRIV for context on this.

For what it's worth on your additions: Samty Holdings has a plausible case, given a $1.1 billion acquisition reported in more than one well-known (and non-niche) outlet. Quest Global looks thinner (a minority stake of undisclosed size sourced to a single trade item). That's my read, and it's the kind of call worth testing with more eyes.

Which brings me to a suggestion: would you be up for moving the discussion to Talk:Hillhouse Investment? I'd open a thread laying out the section-wide question, and we could invite editors who've worked on the article (and new editors) to weigh in. A consensus there will hold up far better than anything you or I settle one-on-one, and it gives your research the right forum. Happy to start the thread and ping you in — just say the word. Zxm92 (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Let's do so. Your rationale is well-based, but I think that the likes of Samty Holdings should be included given the size of the transaction, and also the fact that they received coverage while hundrends of other deals did not. DaffyJZ (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good — I'll open a thread at Talk:Hillhouse Investment and ping you so we can work it through with others. Zxm92 (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Zxm92. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Annabelle Long".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Toby Ann Stavisky, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daniel Rosenthal was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Zxm92, I'm working to add information to the history section of the BlackRock page. I see that you're a member of WP:Finance, and that you've contributed to the BlackRock article in the past. Would you be willing to take a look at my request -Talk:BlackRock#History_section? I appreciate your assistance. Obsidian625 (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Zxm92. I see you joined Women in Red in the first quarter of 2025 and are still active. In view of the small number of female editors, we are trying to encourage more women to take part. In view of your own positive experience, we would like to suggest you invite one or more female friends to join up. You could, for example, help them register on their own equipment if you are in personal contact but you could also just send them a message along these lines:

I think you might be interested in becoming an editor of Wikipedia where you can contribute to improvements yourself. I have been an active editor for some time and find the experience rewarding. As most contributors male, we really need to encourage more women to join up as editors. Please let me know if you are interested or simply go ahead and sign up yourself. You can find out how to do so here

Please let me know whether you have any success and send me the user names of any of your female friends who register.--Ipigott (talk) 10:52, 8 October 2026 (UTC).