W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: Zxm92

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.



Concern regarding Draft:Annabelle Long ↗


25px|alt=Information icon ↗ 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



{| style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF ;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" |
|rowspan="2" |
|style="padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | right|100px ↗'''<big>Women in Red ↗</big>''' <big>|</big> <small>September 2025, Vol 11, Issue 9, Nos. 326, 327, 347, 348, 349<br>''Recognized as the most active, topic-based WikiProject by human changes ↗.''</small>
<br />
'''Online events:'''

'''Announcements''':

'''Tip of the Month''':

'''Progress''' ("moving the needle"):

'''Other ways to participate:'''
|}
--Rosiestep (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
<!-- Message sent by User:Rosiestep@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Outreach/O-Z&oldid=1308332926 -->

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message



<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2025/Coordination/MM/06&oldid=1322758825 -->

Request for article review



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)

VC Firm Update



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)

Revert of my link expansion to Hillhouse Investment ↗



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)

Your draft article, Draft:Annabelle Long ↗


48px|left|alt=|link= ↗

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|Draft:Annabelle Long|edit the submission}}, and remove the {{tlc|db-afc}}, {{tlc|db-draft}}, or {{tlc|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! <!-- Template:Db-draft-notice --> DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2026 (UTC)