User talk:DGG/Archive 83 Dec. 2013

                                       ARCHIVES

DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG

Barnstars, Awards, etc.

Reminders

Topical Archives:
Deletion & AfD,      Speedy & prod,        NPP & AfC,       COI & paid editors,      BLP,                              Bilateral relations
Notability,               Universities & academic people,       Schools,                       Academic journals,       Books & other publications
Sourcing,                Fiction,                                               In Popular Culture      Educational Program
Bias, intolerance, and prejudice

General Archives:
2006: Sept-Dec
2007: Jan-Feb , Mar-Apt , M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D 
2008: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2009: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2010: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2011: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2012: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2013: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2014: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2015: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2016: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2017: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2018: J, F, M , A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2019: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2020: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2021: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2022: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2023: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O

 

            DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG

Notability question

Hi DGG, could I get your opinion on this question? I'm not terribly familiar with notability for magazines. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your comments on my talk page. I've undeleted and listed the debate here. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

NPP

You may wish to add your thoughts to the recent thread at WT:NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

....

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

alas, User:Northamerica1000, the new script fixes only the less important more technical of the problems. It still does not guide the review to give multiple reasons, or to say that something is so unlikely to be acceptable that it had better be withdrawn, and it still permits the reviewer to prevent acceptance for the most trivial variations of format, including even the false statement that inline citations are required (except of course for contentious matter, especially in BLPs), By all means we need to review, but we need to do it properly, and I still find the script only gets in the way of what is actually needed, saying the right things to the new editors. (I try to use it only for its function of cleanup and record-keeping, and erase or modify or supplement the messages it sends, even though this must be done manually. ) DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheless, please consider joining the drive! I use the script, and have found the improvements to be helpful. I use the comment feature when additional reasons for declination need to be denoted. At any rate, thanks for your input, and happy editing! Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The "no inline citations" decline reason is only valid for BLPs. Blaming the tool for the user's incompetence doesn't make sense. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

more exactly, it's appropriate for contentious material in any article, and not necessary for routine statements of fact in BLPs unless reasonably challenged or likely to be. Putting dangerous tools where unskilled people will use them wrongly is not a sensible idea, because they do real harm when they give a new user incorrect information, especially if they discourage them from participation altogether. This is however a common fault of almost all our templates--this is just my most conspicuous example.

NA, giving things as supplements makes them less likely to be read, by a user who is certainly disappointed and probably angry. I simply write everything as a custom reason.

As for me, keeping track of how much I work is effort lost from working-- I consider it a characteristic of bureaucracies. I find it difficult to say this without appearing to put down those who enjoy it, so I consider it just a personal preference. I suppose though there's an argument that having experienced people there adds to the perceived importance. But in any case I'm working mainly on the backlog of apparently abandoned articles, rescuing them at one or two dozen each week (approximately--I don't count them either)

And I'm stopping for now, because I've worked enough for one day. DGG ( talk ) 07:21, 2 December 2013 (UT

Chiel

hi David, it's been a while since you moved page Cheil Worldwide to User:Moonsoomee/Cheil_Worldwide for some correction and revision. I managed to make it as a proper WP article, with appropriate references added. Please review it and let me know if it's good to be published. I will keep on adding latest contents to keep it recent.

IT New York deletion?

Hello David, I am writing in attempts to understand why the page "IT New York" was deleted? I had revised it after researching all of the guidelines to make sure it fit. I feel as if the tone was neutral,it had viable sources, and it made the requirements for being notable. Is there anything I may have missed? Could you maybe point me in the right direction to where it didn't meet regulations and why? Thanks for your time David. talkDanimajor1988 (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)C)

Thanks for the additional reply and for providing your perspective. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Carola Darwin recreated

Hi DGG. This article was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carola Darwin in 2008 in which both you and I !voted delete. It has recently been recreated. I can't see the original, but the "new" version appears to be not significantly different from what I remember of the old one, nor is the sourcing any better—all primary, and I couldn't find anything else either. If it's substantially the same article can it be speedy deleted as G4 (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) or do I have to start a second AfD? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

there is nothing in the new article that was not either present in the old one or mentioned at the AfD. Ref 4 in the nerw article links to a page saying she wrote a novel, but I can't find it in WorldCat. I have therefore listed it for G4, as it is better that some other admin confirm what I saw. In the circumstances, there should be no need for another AfD unless something is added that addresses substantially the concerns, If it is re-created again, let me know, and if it's no better I will block further re-creation--if she does eventually do something notable, then Requests for Undeletion will restore it. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Actually, the 4th reference [1], referred to her sister, Emma Darwin, as having written novels, not her. I've also found yet another draft of the Carola article here, and have "no-indexed" it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

== Australian Doctors for Africa ==

I found some references to Australian Doctors for Africa and added them to the article. I think that the article should be okay now, so I removed your speedy tag. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Eastmain, thanks; it is now clearly enough to pass speedy; I'm not sure of AfD, but all I suggest for now is some condensation. DGG ( talk ) 10:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ruth Morris Bakwin

I am minded to accept this, which I have just restored on request after a G13 deletion. What do you think? JohnCD (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

borderline. I find it difficult to evaluate first [ ] in [ x ]; it means something if x is a nation, perhaps a state, but its more open to question if it is at a specific school, even a very important one. I'll add the book holdings, which are substantial. but it is difficult to evaluate joint authorship. The directory includes 3000 entries in 1500 pp., Based on the finding aid to the papers, which is the most reliable factual source, I'm not sure she was Professor--Professor is often applied rather loosely to physicians & it's not in the finding aid. . The award is not the one from Hobart Smith College, at least its not on the award web p; a/c the finding aid it is an inhouse NYU award. If the criterion is whether she'd pass AfD , it's uncertain but I'd be willing to give it a chance. DGG ( talk ) 11:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have accepted it, we'll see how it goes. She and her husband have some quite highly cited papers. JohnCD (talk) 11:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

McKinsey & Company

I'm working offline on some draft material (do you still have an interest in this page btw?). I have a stack of five books on my desk I am thumbing through. It's quite a project as a very notable major business marked as a high-priority by Wikiproject Business that also has a polarizing and confusing reputation and is a unique organization in general.

Anyways, one of the things they are known for is publishing the McKinsey Quarterly and a plethora of other academic research, 50+ business management books, etc. A few books authored by their consultants have sparked the creation of an entire industry or altered the focus of the business community. I have a list of about 3-5 I need to research. Some of the books like In Search of Excellence have their own Wikipedia articles and mixed/controversial reputations themselves.

So my question as I work on the draft is, how much detail should the McKinsey page include about these books? At the moment I'm writing about a paragraph on each one, but I can't help but wonder if it should only be 2-3 sentences. OTOH, some have negative(ish) reputations and I would want to avoid the appearance of marginalizing the criticisms. CorporateM (Talk) 17:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The article on In Search of Excellence is not the example to follow: it is a mostly unsourced essay & something will have to be done about it. For each book you include, describe who the authors are, describe the contents in 1 or 2 sentences, say how many later editions & translations (Worldcat is the best source), give the library holdings withe a link to the book's p. on WorldCat, & write one sentence about the reception, not going into details about the reviews but making footnotes to the reviews in the most important relevant publications. Question: are these books with an academic impact, a professional impact, or both? Describe any subsequent discussion briefly in one sentence also, with footnotes linking to the actual publications. Later, perhaps some of them can be expanded. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I think whether it has a business or academic impact - the answer is both - probably in every case. I was wondering, because so far I was just putting "two McKinsey consultants" as the authors without naming them. user:Keithbob often urges editors not to name people when it can be avoided, especially in the context of sharp criticisms. In this case, at least one of the authors is famous and I believe actively seeks the spotlight. Should they be named? CorporateM (Talk) 22:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If a book has authors, they must be named. But is the book a book from the authors with their original ideas, which presumably they developed for the company's purposes, or the authors as the people doing the writing for something which is basically the company's work? (Of course, this can be hard to tell, which is why for scientific papers the rules now require the exact role of every named author be specified.) In the second case, the authors can be named as part of the complete bibliographic reference, and put in a footnote. Omitting them entirely is a direct implication that they are mere figureheads, as we omit the name of just which corporate officer made a routine announcement in a press release. (The article on the book you mentioned does explain the role as it should, tho it does it very clumsily.) Whether or not someone seeks the spotlight is not relevant for encyclopedia articles. Publishing a book with one's name on it exposes you to criticism. If you don't want it, you use a pseudonym, as is not unknown in controversial work from people in corporations. All that is necessary is to fairly select and quote the comments, avoiding not just imbalance, but also avoiding quoting irresponsible comments from marginal sources. What also should be avoided is repeating the name unnecessarily,whether for the purpose of expressing a hostile or for that matter a favorable POV. For example," the company announced it had earned (or lost) $000," is right; "The president of the company announced ..." is unnecessary. "John Smith, the president of the company announced ..." is not good practice. "John Smith , the president of the company announced ... Smith said that...." is plain wrong, no matter what Smith said. DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Argh, that makes it difficult, since I have in my notes somewhere that there was a dispute between the author and McKinsey over who deserves credit. So... now that you paint it that way, it would seem like I am taking a side in that dispute either way I go. Anyways, I'll just roll with it the way I have it for now - I'm sure either way would be fine. This article is particularly challenging, because a lot of information that is not normally a part of a company profile is notable, where it isn't normally, and their reputation is very polarized. CorporateM (Talk) 01:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

If it's in dispute, and the dispute has published material on it, it can best be dealt with if the book is notable enough for a separate article, or if the individual is. Otherwise, the safest way is just to give the citation for how OCLC records it in the footnote. That's not taking sides. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC) .

The Great Lakes Chorus

What do you think of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Great Lakes Chorus? I was looking at this one as a possible rescue when it got deleted from under me. I did not find any substantial sources, so haven't undeleted it, but there were lots and lots of newspaper mentions going back many years. The article also seemed very confused about what its subject was supposed to be so another reason for not undeleting was I was not at all confident I could clean up the clarity without a good source. SpinningSpark 11:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I've undeleted it, which should be good for 6 months. My current principle is to keep from G13 anything that has possibilities. I started thinking that I would keep only the ones I myself wished to work on, but that was before Hasteurbot started going so fast. There's no time to think now, just to guess. And in addition to scanning the ones about to be deleted I sometimes check the deleted ones also, to check anything obvious, though it's much slower.Even keeping anything with any possibilities, about 90% at least will get deleted, which greatly reduces the problem for the second round. I suggest it would be best rewritten by using the material there and starting over, since it is indeed rather confused. The online history of the group is a decent source, tho not independent, and since they seem to have won a national prize, they are probably notability --there should be newspaper sources for that. There must be books on barbershop, and they should mention it. If not, it'll be deleted 6 months or so from now, and no harm is done. Anyway, that's the way I'm now thinking about these. DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess we'll leave it at that then. I've been moving stuff into mainspace if I can find at least one decent source, even if the article is poor and unreferenced, but I have nothing of that quality for this one. SpinningSpark 20:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library's Books and Bytes newsletter (#2)

Books & Bytes

Sign up for monthly delivery

Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world.

Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations...

Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...

Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...

Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...

Read Books & Bytes

The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Tak Sun Secondary School‎

You are cordially invited to participate in the discussion on this article at Talk:Tak Sun Secondary School‎. - Ahunt (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:BP

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:BP. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your opinion

Hi DGG - I've been poking around a fair bit in article space recently, and I've stumbled across some articles whose notability I think is questionable. However, I've not been following AfD for a while, so I'm not sure where current interpretations would put them on the notability spectrum. I'd appreciate your thoughts on whether the articles on these Youtube channels would likely be found notable enough to survive AfD: 1, 2. They also seem pretty promotional to my eye, with some iffy references. Thanks, Risker (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not know what counts as notable in this field . There are adequate references in each case that they are forming the channel and hope to increase the viewership. Personally, i'd be inclined to class them as not yet notable, but I'm no judge on this subject. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC) .

Candidate for AfD? Wendy Fonarow

Hello, DGG. The article Wendy Fonarow, about an adjunct instructor at a two-year community college with one book and one article written by the subject, has been tagged for WP:Academic since November 2012. I wanted to bring it to your attention as a possible candidate for AfD. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a genre of music I am no expert in, but the situation is fairly clear. Her book Empire of Dirt is technically notable because of the reviews, according to WP:BOOK, which is a looser criterion than almost anything else in WP. In the case of an author of one notable book, and nothing else of significance, we have a choice of writing the article on the book or the author. Sometimes the decision has been to write the article on the book, which I think a poor decision unless almost nothing is known about the author. A person may always go on to do additional things (in particular, write additional books), but opportunity to expand the article is very rare for a book (it might for example get made into a film, or attract a censorship controversy) . In this case a few other things are known about the author, and there is one somewhat important publication in addition.) So I think there's enough to justify the article on the author, merging in the material on the book.

A reason for hesitation is the apparent promotionalism. The very decision to write two articles here is so characteristic of promotional writing that I treat it as a diagnostic sign. The elaborate discussion of how an individual happened to get interested in starting out in their field is also diagnostic of either autobiography or promotionalism. It's generally of very little interest to an ordinary reader, unless the person is famous or the career extremely unusual. The person it does interest is of course the subject, and the only source also can only be the subject, who can pretty much say whatever they care to about this. (It's also one of the very few possible ways of fleshing out a minimal article--the other possibilities are generally hobbies, minor charities, schooling details, and family history--and a disproportionate discussion of any of this is also diagnostic of autobio or promotionalism). Another diagnostic sign is unnecessary see alsos or linking, both present here; similarly diagnostic is a list of too many professions in the infobox. We're too focused on whether or not a subject should have an article; we need to think more, how much of an article should there be?

My recommendation then, is a merge/redirect on the book, and a drastic trim on the author. My experience is that when this is done, if it is reverted, then it does indicate a stubborn promotional purpose rather than just a misunderstanding of WP, and then it's time for AfD. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wheapsted

There's already an article but with a different spelling (Whepstead). Peter James (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking in detail at the article and the AfC, & going to the coordinates specified. I suspect the AfC is not really an alternate spelling, but altogether imaginary, or a reference to a single house. DGG ( talk ) 21:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Alexander Montgomerie, 9th Earl of Eglinton

Just to let you know that I deleted the paragraph that you added with this edit in 2007 to Alexander Montgomerie, 9th Earl of Eglinton, as what you added apparently referred to Alexander Montgomerie, 6th Earl of Eglinton. The 9th Earl wasn't born until 1660, some time after the Seige of York & the battle of Marston Moor. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

if you've straightened it out, good. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for COIN assistance

Hi. Back in June you did an impressively deep dive into a COIN report that I still appreciate to this day. I'm curious if you might be willing to do another one here? The issues aren't quite the same but in both cases there's no way to resolve the allegations fairly without sinking some time into it. I'm not asking for your help because of how you came out in that prior dispute, I'm only asking because of your willingness to put in the considerable but necessary effort. If you feel my request is improper canvassing, or if you don't have the time or inclination to help, then perhaps you can ping another administrator. From my last experience I know COIN can be dreadfully slow. Thanks in advance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

a request of me is not canvassing, because if I am asked to look at something I look at it from a fresh view, and often say something very different from what might seem to have been expected. The FDU article was a special case, being in my field of interest, and in an area where I specially look for problems of promotionalism and COI, & know the pattern well enough to judge them. -Personally I though the issues in both fairly clear at even a quick reading --I only went into the detail into order to make plain the nature of the very stubborn opposition of the COI editor, to some extent as an example.

ALEC is an inherently controversial article as are all articles on political lobbying group, and one where I would expect a priori every major contributor to be motivated by some form of COI, whether as personal advocacy or paid editing can make little difference. I dislike our entire current approach to this--trying to identify individual editors and their organizational affiliations is relatively unimportant. What matters is the editing. In that respect, I see some problems not previously discussed there. and I will make a comment. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw this. I appreciate your perspective on this, though I do think that WP:COI shouldn't be deemphasized in this way. COI isn't just about bias; it's also about setting some rules about who is and is not allowed to contribute and in what ways, in order to give readers at least some reassurance that Wikipedia is an independently written encyclopedia that isn't directly corrupted by money and special interests. This is especially true in the political sphere. In any case, this is an aside. Ultimately the problem from my personal perspective isn't Ms. Lutz's bias, which I can handle fairly well; rather it's her stonewalling and combativeness over even the smallest details that reflect poorly on ALEC. Every edit, every source is contested, sometimes dishonestly. The refusal to answer justify edits, the IDHT. The overall pattern of disruption that's making collaborative editing much more difficult. This is a conduct problem, not a content problem. I thought that perhaps if there was consensus that Ms. Lutz had a true COI (i.e. an affiliation), then Ms. Lutz might back off (whether by being forced to observe COI guidelines, or voluntarily). Do you think this is better suited to another forum such as ANI or RFC/U? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Icehockeyinharlem

Hi David, I would like your opinion whether this organization is notable or not and, if so, should I go ahead and improve the page. Personally, I think they are locally notable and, outside of that, maybe even possibly notable (at least under the bar). They've received coverage in notable sources such as LA Times, NYTimes (these two go as far back as 1988 and through the 90's) NYDailyNews, NYPost and NBC Sports. Additionally, you'll notice that they've had a long-time affiliation with NHL and various hockey teams as well as hockey players including Wayne Gretzky and Pat Hickey. They've also had programs with various universities. I'm open to any comments you have. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

There have been a few other articles like this, and I have often recommended merging them into an article about the team, in a section called = Local sponsored activities, or Community involvement, or even a section on the particular group--compromises like this are good solutions in many cases. . But it's possible that the team is so famous that even an auxiliary organization like this is notable. It's an open question to what extent newspapers like the NYTimes are as reliable for human interest stories of local events as they are for general news-- it's been argued both ways. Given the sources, an article would seem possible. But this article is highly promotional--see for example the 2nd paragraph of the lede, or the first paragraph under Today, or the entire section of the Benefit, or indeed much of the rest. Removing adjectives of praise would only be the start in fixing this. Some of the wording also strongly suggests copyvio -- for example, the 2nd paragraph under History.

There are several courses of action-- 1/ my suggestion for a merge, The parts to be merged should be selected to not include any likely copyvio. 2/ asking that it be rewritten to about half the size to remove promotionalism and especially any copyvio,and then to accept it, realizing someone may send it to afd & for anything at AfD it is hard to guess the outcome--the more concise the article, the less likely that would be. It's a general question how much improvement is reasonable to expect in an AfC, and how much should be left for later. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Obviously the article was written in a somewhat promotional, yes, and I'm sure by someone affiliated with the organization. Regarding improvement, I'm probably going to have to cut alot of the "copyvio" like stuff and other inappropriate and, although it's probably going to be rather small, it's likely going to be something of an improvement. For a rather local non-profit organization, they sure have received some good news coverage, more than what other groups have received. I'll work on some drafts and see what I can do. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I see we agree. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Ahmet Orun

I'm thinking this guy is bunk. Somethings pan out others don't. The ISBN of the book he "wrote" doesn't pan out and WorldCat doesn't have a book by him. Some of the patents don't pan out. The paragraph "Orun was co-developer of the Orun & Natarajan Satellite Sensor model..." doesn't entirely pan out, papers mention the model, but doesn't source most of the paragraph. Only done a few papers and rest are conference publications. The "radiosonde wind vectors at Istanbul" paper is something a college senior could do. Could you double check this for an AfD. Bgwhite (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason to think it bunk, but rather the question is notability, whether Orun has in fact discovered a widely used method. 1/. I see no books-- no.1 is a paper in a conference publication, and International GIS sourcebook is just a chapter in one. 2/ the claim that the sensor is used in all commercial systems is unlikely, but it might still be widely used 3/In this field. conference papers can be as important as journal articles, 4/The key point is therefore, whether Orun's work is widely recognized, and this is best seen by whether it is cited. There are several scientists by that name, but Google Scholar seems to list this particular individual as AB Orun. The citations are here. 4/The key paper appears to be the first, whose abstract is here,cited 70 times. None of his other work is highly cited, and most of the work in his CV appears to be in relatively minor places. 5/One major discovery is nonetheless sufficient, but whether this is sufficiently major, I cannot tell, as I am not an expert in the subject. AfD is therefore the way to determine it, but it isn't a question of good faith, just an ordinary one of notability DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Zaccaro

So, in your opinion, every article suppose to be something like this: Stephen Zaccaro? Like, I still keep the h-index and Google Scholar reference because I don't want anyone denying their notability, just because I find them heck knows where. The reason why I did this is because user Kudpung have removed my auto-reviewing privilege after he stumbled on some non notable people in some of my articles, one of which lacked sources. So in order not to step on the rake again I decided to use Google Scholar as a prime reference. If its not O.K. to do it, what is? Like, For example, I can't find any info on Israel Cidon, just because of his name. You see, Google throws me either articles related to his papers or to Israel the country. I would more then happy to make a good article, but I will need help with some of them because of my fear writing about something that is not notable. For another example you can see this guy: Hans Westerhoff, which I tried to improve, but kept Google Scholar just in case. You see, if I wont add it, someone might delete the article as a list of publications isn't enough.--Mishae (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

WP is intended to be an encyclopedia to give people information when they want it, and when they want to find out about the career and accomplishments of a person, they normally want more than just the minimum bare numbers. This is true in any subject: people want more than just the statistics, In some cases we can do not better, but where we can do better, it is normally not thought good practice to do just the minimum, and several people have been told they could not autoconfirm their own articles because of this--and I think in one or two cases, even required to use AfC. I and others have tried very hard to prevent the actual rejection of such articles, and we have usually succeeded, But it shouldn't be necessary to make the argument, because everyone should share the burden of producing at least moderately substantive articles.

Normally for an academic there are at least two two sources of information: the individual's own offical CV, and the record of their publications and citations. Sometimes there will just be the publication record, but this can at least be shown fully. If there are books, they can be listed and some idea of their importance given from library holdings and the reputation of the publisher and sometimes the citations and reviews. If there are only articles, then besides giving the number and the total citation count, we can indicate what they are about, and give not just the h value but the much more informative information about what the most important publications are and what their citations are and where they were published. Normally we do not do a full analysis of every publication that way--such would be for a more specialized encyclopedia. But we should be able to at least give the highlights.

for anyone I think clearly notable in a field I understand, I will try to fill in details, but there is too much work to do it myself--too much for me to do even 1% of what is needed. I agree with you however that if in a particular case you cannot, you should at least give what you do give--if nothing else, the citation record indicates to me what is worth working on further. I'm not at all saying you shouldn't give the GS counts, but to urge you to keep trying for better. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

So, this is the best I could have done with those guys: Israel Cidon, Hans Westerhoff, Idit Keidar, Zoi Lygerou, Hui-Hai Liu. There are many people with similar (if not identical) Chinese names and last names, I will appreciate any help.--Mishae (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I rewrote the article on Lui, using only the sources listed in Google. It could be expanded further, by describing the work published in his major papers -- some articles do that; I normally leave it to others, I do not think there is evidence he was born in the US, since his first two degrees are from China. tho it may be in some of the chinese pages listed in Google. Perhaps you can do the others similarly. BTW, on what basis are you selecting these individuals to write about? Just curious. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Simple, believing in future GA and FA articles (let alone DYK) and just because they are notable and not listed in Wikipedia (some only present in one language sections, others no where to be found). Plus, I just wanted to do something other then plants, and because of my autism I move every project up couple of steps at a time! :) I do require some copyediting unfortunately. :(--Mishae (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

If you go a step at a time, just remember to add that {{underconstruction}} tag at the top--it's near the end of the list on Twinkle, (and if they are in another languages WP, please be sure to add the link.)I'm still a little curious how you pick these particular ones--where do you find them? I ask because figuring out what articles are needed here is a difficult art & I'm tying to compare how different people do it. I can't keep up with all your articles, but I know where to find them if I do have the time to add to them, even if they have mistakenly gotten deleted. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Simple, I type in the last name of any person in Google Scholar search engine (the top ones are almost always top ranked). Plus, its just my luck and magic I guess. :) I usually write a full stub at least, with journals and other notability requirements. But sometimes I go 2 or 3 steps at a time by writing a Start or a C class article (I have numerous of such on plants). The only problem, the bigger the article, the more chances I end up with copyedit issues, since I afraid of any copyvios on my part. If you have Skype, by any chance, I can send you my articles that way, so that you can check some of them at least. By the way, you mentioned that you might help me with the deleted articles? Can you help me here?--Mishae (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Username policy/RFC

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Username policy/RFC. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Wendy Grantham

I just had a question about your comment on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wendy_Grantham. Did you mean that you would have accepted the speedy deletion of the article itself or the speedy deletion tag the article's creator placed on the AFD page? If you will accept the speedy deletion of the article itself I can tag it. How do I do that? Hector the Toad (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

A speedy deletion has been declined by another editor, and cannot be re-done. The only way to deal with the article now is at AfD. Speedy is only for uncontroversial deletions, and if another editor than the one who wrote the article thinks it's not a speedy, then it is not uncontroversial. See WP:Deletion policy. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, nobody tagged the article for speedy deletion. Someone tagged the AFD page itself for speedy deletion, and that was declined. Hector the Toad (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I mean, this is the speedy deletion tag that was declined: [2]. It was on the AFD page not the article itself. Then upon your advice I tagged the article itself for deletion as "db-a7." [3] Then the author of the article removed the Speedy deletion tag. [4] I am sure he is not allowed to do that. What should I do? Hector the Toad (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

−

User:Tokyogirl79, a highly respected editor, and an admin like myself, said at the AfD that she would decline a speedy. that's fully sufficient to stop it. We're not a bureaucracy, and her intent was clear. Even when I disagree with her, which is very rare, I am not about to overturn her decisions. Even were I to consider it a matter of BLP enforcement, such a decision can only be overturned by consensus. The matter will be discussed at the AfD, and the community will come to a consensus, and yet another admin will summarize what the consensus is. That's how we do things here. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

SAS (software)

I think it was JMP (statistical software) (now GA) where I got the sense that you had an interest/familiarity in the topic, so I wanted to let you know I just nominated a related article for a GA review. It feels like... something is missing that it still needs to be GA ready, but I can't put my finger on it, so I'll see what feedback I get. CorporateM (Talk) 08:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

my sense is that the problem is the overall organization and prose style. It just sounds uninteresting, and the usual cure for that is greater sentence variation. There's also some duplication (there still is also some in the JMP article) I think the two articles need sections on key applications: such a section can be a horror if done without judgement and selectivity, but you should be able to do it right. They also do need a discussion of how they fit into the overall spectrum of statistical software--sections dealing with competitors can also be problems, but again maybe you can get it right. The article of comparison of statistical software just gives features, not a useful idea of what the most widely used choices are. DGG ( talk ) 09:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you mind if I paste your comment on the article Talk page? I will look around a bit to see if I can find information on the items you mentioned. A Reception-type section was mentioned a couple times. From what I've seen a fair reception section says the software is powerful (used by most major corporations) but has a steep learning curve, but I have not found a reliable-enough source that says it. I think a Notable applications section should be doable though and pretty standard fair for a software article, as you say, when done selectively in a non-promotional fashion. CorporateM (Talk) 22:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

sure, please do. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

In its sphere, SAS is an enormous company ($2.7 billion) and apparently has 17,000 employees. It should be possible to find out a lot of stuff on the web. The SAS software is heavily used by businesses and in medical research. The last time I looked into the software itself it seemed old-fashioned. (The syntax originated in the 1960s). The R (programming language) is more trendy but doesn't handle exactly the same problems. There is always the risk that an article about software will turn into a laundry list of features, but it would take some work to improve it beyond that point. EdJohnston (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I just realized I am not sure if by applications you mean things like "In 2009, the Chicago Botanic Garden used JMP to analyze DNA data from tropical breadfruit. Researchers determined that the seedless, starchy fruit was created by the deliberate hybridization of two fruits, the breadnut and the dugdug.[2]" JMP article or things like "It is widely used in insurance, public health, scientific research, finance, human resources, IT, utilities, and retail, and is used for operations research, project management, quality improvement, forecasting and decision-making.[1]" (SAS Page and somewhat dreadful as a long list atm) Yes, the software is very notable, but as a technical topic, it is difficult to find and evaluate sources. Many of the sources I used are non-traditional, such as conference papers, but appropriate for the topic I think. CorporateM (Talk) 00:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I think I got it - I'll get to work on it. I also fixed some of the redundancy and copyediting. CorporateM (Talk) 04:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so I researched "applications" such as risk management, customer intelligence and other industry catchphrases, and found out that those are the actual products. For example, what SAS actually sells is the "SAS Fraud Framework" and the "components" currently mentioned in the technical section is more of an "under-the-hood" - several components are used together for each "product". In any case, I threw together a draft and proposed a re-ordering of the sections. If you or user:EdJohnston have any feedback/comments/etc. it would be welcomed on the article Talk page. CorporateM (Talk) 23:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

A professor bio AFC that I accepted

Hi DGG, does this AfC acceptance seem OK to you? The submission had previously been rejected four times, but the individual seems to me to meet items 3 and 5 of WP:ACADEMIC. I thought I would check with you because I am still a little uncertain about these criteria. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Unquestionably notable for exactly the reasons you specify, adequate article. Many of these professor bios were wrongly declined in the past on various irrelevant grounds; They need reliable sources to show the career and the publication, not third party sources. They do not need inline refs unless there is something controversial. The notability criteria at WP:PROF are explicitly an alternative to GNG, and if they are met, GNG need not be met also, tho it often is. Even good editors who don;t regularly work with these articles often use the wrong standard. You are right not to be impressed by what people said before: your own judgment was better. DGG ( talk ) 10:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: UFP Technologies

Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of UFP Technologies, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Makes claims of notability (clean room coverage in a reliable source, for example). Not unduly promotional. Possibly fixable. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok , I will take another look at it. thanks DGG ( talk ) 07:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion - JJ Breet

Hi, you've declined a speedy deletion for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/JJ Breet citing the potential that the subject might be notable. Since the AFC was first submitted, a more detailed article has been created at JJ Breet which meets the subject-specific notability guidelines at WP:NRU. Hack (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

thanks--I will take care of the AfC. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Seeking advice

Hey DGG, I've seen your name pop up around the parts of Wikipedia I've perused, so figured I'd ask you this question: I've started a new section asking for input from a few editors on the Georgia Regents University talk page, but haven't heard anything in a few days. Could you take a quick look at give me your impressions? I've considered opening an RfC for more input, but figure approaching a couple of highly-reputable editors would be more efficient at this point. Thanks for any help you can give! GRUcrule (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

commented there.See WP:Summary style. DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sang Won Kang, Kyonoshin Maruyama and Kum Kum Khanna

Can you check those articles for me please? They are proposed for deletion and I don't want any fuss. I used Google Scholar as a reliable source, but user Freshacconci things differently. Can you intervene on his talkpage, because I am lost and I am in request of second opinion. Many thanks in advance.--Mishae (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

the first & 3rd seem notable ; I need to check the 2nd further. But you can't blame people for not seeing it, because citations in GS are not the formal standard of notability , tho they do tend strongly to indicate it. I see you've been trying to add additional info. Try as a minimum to add: the most cited paper, and the current position--not just the place but the title. And find their university website. Google alone does rather well for this, or find the university web page & search from there. This gives other people a chance to easily expand the article, and gives you a start when you get back to it. And add that "underconstruction" tag!

An alternative way of working would be to keep these pages as user subpages until you have built up enough material, and then move them. That way you can work at your own speed without people taking unfounded objections. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

As I expressed on his talkpage that I need a second opinion, so no, I wasn't blaming anyone. As far as underconstruction tag is going, it says that anyone can remove it in several days, meaning that even I will put it someone will still AfD it in a day or two. Its a pointless risk. I do however would like to thank you for your hard work making such individuals notable, because sometimes they don't have bios even on their Universities websites (that's why I skip on it and move on), or they do, and its in foreign language (I speak and understand Russian and English). Sometimes I might use Google Translate, but that's not much, its only gives me a glimpse of certain news agency that is native to that region.--Mishae (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Seeking advice

Hey DGG, I've seen your name pop up around the parts of Wikipedia I've perused, so figured I'd ask you this question: I've started a new section asking for input from a few editors on the Georgia Regents University talk page, but haven't heard anything in a few days. Could you take a quick look at give me your impressions? I've considered opening an RfC for more input, but figure approaching a couple of highly-reputable editors would be more efficient at this point. Thanks for any help you can give! GRUcrule (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

commented there.See WP:Summary style. DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sang Won Kang, Kyonoshin Maruyama and Kum Kum Khanna

Can you check those articles for me please? They are proposed for deletion and I don't want any fuss. I used Google Scholar as a reliable source, but user Freshacconci things differently. Can you intervene on his talkpage, because I am lost and I am in request of second opinion. Many thanks in advance.--Mishae (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

the first & 3rd seem notable ; I need to check the 2nd further. But you can't blame people for not seeing it, because citations in GS are not the formal standard of notability , tho they do tend strongly to indicate it. I see you've been trying to add additional info. Try as a minimum to add: the most cited paper, and the current position--not just the place but the title. And find their university website. Google alone does rather well for this, or find the university web page & search from there. This gives other people a chance to easily expand the article, and gives you a start when you get back to it. And add that "underconstruction" tag!

An alternative way of working would be to keep these pages as user subpages until you have built up enough material, and then move them. That way you can work at your own speed without people taking unfounded objections. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

As I expressed on his talkpage that I need a second opinion, so no, I wasn't blaming anyone. As far as undeconstruction tag is going, it says that anyone can remove it in several days, meaning that even I will put it someone will still AfD it in a day or two. Its a pointless risk. I do however would like to thank you for your hard work making such individuals notable, because sometimes they don't have bios even on their Universities websites (that's why I skip on it and move on), or they do, and its in foreign language (I speak and understand Russian and English). Sometimes I might use Google Translate, but that's not much, its only gives me a glimpse of certain news agency that is native to that region.--Mishae (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Methodology of heuristics – advice needed

Hi DGG. This article has been proposed for deletion. I'm tempted to AfD it instead. While it has problems, I'm not sure they're insurmountable and it contains some useful information and references. On the other hand, perhaps it would be better to either userfy it for more work or redirect it to Heuristics in judgment and decision making? What do you think? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

the current title is indeed somewhat confusing, and it is not easy to separate the topics discussed in that article from heuristics in general. The study of X is usually simply called X. There are of course some distinctions, such as historiography, but historiography is not the study of history but rather the study of how people write history. Or "musicology" as distinct from practical instruction in music. But there are also such valid topics as "Methods of X" -- I've taught a course on "biological methods" which was devoted to a orientation for beginning grad students of research techniques of various sorts, and there are many topics liker "Mathematical methods of economics," or "Statistics in archeology." I have in front of me a useful little book from the Modern Langaguage Association of America called Introduction to scholarship in modern languages and literatures. So I suppose there could be an article on "Investigative methods of heuristics", which I think is what was intended. The "Heuristics in judgment and decision making" article seems basically like a more technical presentation of the material in the "Heuristics" article, I do not think it a very good title but I can not immediately think of a better. I'm going to remove the prod and change the title to "Investigative methods in heuristics", and put a note essentially copying what I said here on the article talk p. this discussion. I may try to edit it myself, but they probably could do it better. DGG ( talk ) 10:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

On Rikio Sugano

Hello! Mr. or Ms. DGG. My name is Ichiro Kikuchi. The article Rikio Sugano is not about Rikio Sugano. Please check. The content is about another person and I think it is worth an article in Wikipedia. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I moved it to Fujiro Katsurada, the actual subject, who is well documented and clearly notable, , but there will be some more cleanup necessary, which I'll do soon. The error seems to have arisen when you deleted the content on the page that was about Sugano and wrote a new article on Katsusrada. What you should have done, is started a new page altogether. But thanks for catching it now, so I could fix it. DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Drafts

The way the WMF appears to be taking over this AfC intiative gives me pause. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

perhaps we should look at it, that they think they can do something to help us according to what we ourselves want., & the only problem is that we must take care they understand correctly. If we really have doubts about whether they will, the only practical course is to do in the new system only what programming we can ourselves do in WP with templates, and not ask for any features that need to be programmed into Mediawiki besides the existence of the namespace, however desirable they might be otherwise. Rather than try to get our way in conflicts, which past things show to be arouse antagonisms--and are liable to failure, it would be better to diminish the places conflcits can occur.

there are other things also about AfC that give me considerable concern, including a current arb com case. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not involved in the Arbcom case at all, but oddly enough it was sparked off by something i said last week. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Nor am I listed as involved. but the disagreement about both standards and interpretations among established editors is not promising, especially since some seem very uncompromising. DGG ( talk ) 15:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Muumuu House Recreation

Hi DGG! The AfD deletion review for Muumuu House resulted in a decision that it's re-creation be permitted. See: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November#4 November 2013. The article itself is still locked for editing. Is the next step in the process to have an administrator unlock the article? Cheers. OR drohowa (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

done. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of SSL certificates for web servers

Thank you for temporarily restoring Comparison of SSL certificates for web servers for discussion at Deletion Review. During the temporary period while this article remains under discussion, is it OK - as far as you know - for editors to resume making improvements to the article? Template talk:TempUndelete is inconclusive on the matter. zazpot (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

improvements, but not major changes. After you've fixed them, say so as a comment in the discussion so people will know to look again. DGG ( talk ) 16:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Graphs and charts

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Graphs and charts. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

A new AfC process for the Draft namespace

I've sugested you may wish to comment on a discussion I have started with Hasteur. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at CaroleHenson's talk page.
Message added 06:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

CaroleHenson (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Your input requested

I am evaluating whether to tell McKinsey we should improve the article on the McKinsey Quarterly and/or create one on the McKinsey Global Institute. Both are notable, but their sources I think will be mostly about the information they have published, rather than about the institution itself. I have looked at some of the FA/GA articles in WikiProject Journals and WikiProject Magazines and some of them rely heavily on niche sources and/or primary sources. I was wondering if you had any advice in this area or knowledge of where sources can be found. Are there any publications that provide thorough reviews/profiles of other publications themselves? I'm not sure, but I thought this was an area you were relatively active in. CorporateM (Talk) 23:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm reading Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). It seems to me that the McKinsey Global Institute, while a publishing entity, would fall under WP:ORG and would need to meet much higher notability requirements and (as a part of McKinsey) we would generally consolidate. The McKinsey Quarterly is a periodical and meets the notability requirements, but as the guideline says, we still need proper independent sources. Technically it should be deleted, but I have a hard time imagining that knowing that it's a big deal (some say it is more prestigious than the Harvard Business Review). So probably just keeping it to 1 paragraph might be the way to go. I can clean it up a little with a nice infobox and better sources. CorporateM (Talk) 02:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

That's for academic journals. We have much more difficulty with magazines or trade journals, as there seem to be no consistently applicable guidelines, and the GNG is not very helpful. we tend to judge each publication on its own merits. MCQ is not a peer-reviewed academic journal--it is a high quality relatively technical in-house journal written by its own staff based on its own research. it does not have references to other publications or sources; its reliability is that of the company. Universities do not publish journals of their own work, because no matter how high the quality of the university, it is the involvement of outsiders that gives credibility. (There have been one or two inhouse purely technical journals of this sort from major technology companies in the 20th century, and they too had prestige, but have been largely abandoned in favor of peer-reviewed conference presentations)

I have added sufficient material to the MCQ article to give a reasonable likelihood of notability , and I will look for further material over the next few weeks. How AfD would determine it if questioned is unpredictable. In practice, reputation does often count.

For the Global Institute, it will be harder to show notability , because they publish a variety of material as monographs and subseries, and it is therefore much more difficult to determine holdings and indexing. I therefore agree with your impression that it should be integrated in the main article. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Bal Rajagopalan

I would be obliged if you could explain your reasons for the deletion of the page I created, "Bal Rajagopalan", aka "Dr Raj". He is a noted media personality in the United States who has appeared on ABC, CBS, Fox and is currently appearing in Dr. 90210. He is deemed worthy of an entry for IMDB, so I didn't think his inclusion on Wikipedia would be an issue. Please explain why you thought the page was self-promoting.IW4U (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As far as I know, IMDB doesn't have any real notability criteria for inclusion. You can find many non-notable individuals having entries there. I think the only criterion they have is an appearance in a show, no matter how small. IMDB is trying to be comprehensive, which is not the same thing as being encyclopedic. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

the reason it was nominated for speedy deletion, and the reason I deleted it, was that the article was entirely and totally promotional. It presents his listing on various minor lists of local doctors and his appearances on TV programs as if they were meaningful. They are not--that's exactly the things done for publicity purposes. It was written as purely an advertisement for him as any PR piece, and there is no substance there to permit it to be reduced to an encyclopedia article. WP is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias do not do advertising. Nor is this entirely my own judgment-the page had already been listed for speedy deletion by another editor. And some other of your articles have been similarly listed by others.

But even if a promotion-free article could be written, he would not be qualified for WP. As [User:Amaltulic]] says, being in IMdB is no proof of anything but existence. Appearing in various shows on TV channels is not notability. Neither does his professional standing as a physician show it--Newsweek's top physicians in California list and similar lists have no authority. What is needed to show a physician notable is extensive and widely cited professional work in peer-reviewed journals, or major professional awards at a nation level. Without this there is no chance whatsoever of an article.

I notice from comments already on your user talk page that your user name in some of its forms can be interpreted that you are engaged in paid promotional editing. This is very strongly discouraged here, and editors who do that and nothing else will be blocked from WP. I have given you a warning to that effect on your user talk page, and am now examining your other articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to severely question your motives. Firstly "And some other of your articles have been similarly listed by others" is a complete lie. Secondly, ALL the articles I have created have been reviewed by other editors who did not see a problem - indeed one editor even edited the "Dr Raj" article. Thirdly, placing a "speedy deletion" tag on my sandbox is just pathetic, as that is not even a Wikipedia article. IW4U (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) DGG's motives are the same as any other admin: to prevent disruption of Wikipedia and encourage the creation of encyclopedic content. To that end, we highly discourage paid editing, as you seem to be doing. Claiming that "all" the articles you created were reviewed by other editors who did not see a problem is clearly a falsehood -- the one who nominated one of yours for deletion clearly did see a problem and DGG agreed. I also agree. And finally, speedy deletion of promotional pieces in sandboxes is perfectly acceptable. Wikipedia is not a publicity medium. That's a core policy; please try to remember it. If you have a conflict of interest with the articles you're writing, your best course is to submit them through WP:AFC rather than creating them yourself in main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

"Claiming that "all" the articles you created were reviewed by other editors who did not see a problem is clearly a falsehood" - clearly it is not. I did not say all the editors did not see a problem, I said all the articles were reviewed by other editors who did not see a problem. There is a distinct difference, and I would be obliged if you would refrain from calling me a liar. IW4U (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I am confused

In the AFD for Michael Scanlan, it appears you are saying that in an article about a professor there is no need for independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage. When I read WP:PROF, I keep seeing it specifying coverage in reliable sources.

In the "This page in a nutshell:" box it says: "Subjects of biographical articles on Wikipedia are required to be notable; that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice, as evidenced by being the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources." and "This notability guideline specifies criteria for judging the notability of an academic through reliable sources for the impact of their work."

In the "Criteria" section it says: "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable."

In the "General notes" section it says: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject."

Am I misreading what you are saying or am I missing the point of WP:Prof? GB fan 12:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources are needed. Independent reliable sources are not. The official posted CV of an academic is a reliable source for the facts of their career .We always require verifiability. For the GNG, but not WP:PROF, we require more than that the facts of the bio be verified; we require the sources to be of a particular nature to prove there is sufficient public attention. The relationship between specific notability guidelines and the GNG varies, but for WP:PROF it is specifically stated as an alternative, not a supplemental requirement. DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Please help with the page for Martha Nell Smith

Martha erred by editing her own page but many of us around the globe are distressed by recent editors/administrators blocking access to her page and disallowing us to add sources. The best edit is this:

Martha Nell Smith is Professor of English and Founding Director of the Maryland Institute for Technology in the Humanities (MITH) at the University of Maryland, College Park, most well known as one of the foremost Emily Dickinson scholars of our time. In 2012 she made headlines bringing the second photograph of Emily Dickinson to light. .

But subsequent editors have deleted all references and disallowed any edits. Help, I know you care about female academics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.27.225.219 (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I comented. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Three other editors added substantial, thoughtful, and verifiable edits today and were shut down utterly; all that work is lost. Can you please weigh in again? How are Emily DIckinson and literary experts supposed to improve anything when editors who know nothing keep erasing? 69.80.107.88 (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

AfC to be disbanded?

David, Please chime in here if you can. Everyone seems to be talking about a dozen things at once and there is some wild speculation. There is not likely to be any focused productivity as a result of it. You may need to read the whole thread. (This reminds me well of the mess the development of BLPPROD was a couple of years ago.) The whole thing needs some proper coordination by somebody. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Bérardier

Hello, sorry for my not very good english, I'm an user of it.wiki and I contact you since I read that you are one of the major contributors of the page about Denis Bérardier. I wanted to point out to you that, while I was searching for some information about the deputies of the French National Assembly of 1790, I found that Denis Bérardier has been confused with François-Joseph Bérardier de Bataut, since in two non-wiki references (here, [5], in page 12; and here [6]) François-Joseph Berardier is the one who was elected at the National Assembly, taught at the Lycée Louis-le-Grand and was saved by Desmoulins during the Reign of Terror. This confusion probably comes from fr.wiki, where in the two pages there is the same biography (written in two different ways). I hope to have been useful (and I hope also that you have understood my horrible english =) ) --Caarl 95 (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Autoblock Problem

Dear DGG --I'm writing to you because we have had good interactions before but I have been blocked for reasons that do not seem right, primarily because of overreach by Bbb23. I sometimes still log in so I can check my watch list pages. The problem is that merely logging in to my account means the IP address of where I log in (library, Starbucks, airport) is subsequently auto blocked for everyone else for 36 hours. This does not seem fair since I have no intention of getting around my block and because I just want to log in to check my watch list (which is allowed). My block is indefinite (again, overreach) so there is no end date for the damage does to the IP address of where I log into my blocked account. This seems to me to be unreasonable. I am trying to find some administrator at Wikipedia to do two things: solve this IP problem (since I can in fact log into my account, just not edit) and to stop Bbb23's overreach. Obviously I cannot sign this or my IP address will be blocked by Bbb23. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.22.179 (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

What you are asking is to have the block modified to remove autoblock. Let me think where and how to ask, and whether it is likely to be granted. There is however a way of getting around it, which is simply to keep a list of the pages off-wiki and check them without logging in. DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a long list of pages (many dozens) on my watch list and it would take too much time to watch them individually. Also, I was a good editor for many years and the block is a misunderstanding (and I think some shenanigans from years ago that caught up with me). If I were to tell you who I am, you would know that I am a good editor but Bbb23 has been fairly ugly about this process, misreading my explanation and blocking access to my own talk page to point out that he misinterpreted something I'd said. He auto blocked me for "going around my block" when another administrator asked me to clarify something after Bbb23 blocked my talk page. So I did what I'm doing now, answered without logging in, and then Bbb23 implemented auto block. This seems unfair to any IP address I use (you will note that I had to move to another location to reply to you again.)207.207.28.140 (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

WP: Exhibitions

In light of the increase in GLAM projects internationally, I'd like to start a new WikiProject, WP:Exhibitions to help coordinate activities around major museum and gallery exhibitions. If you are interested in the project, please contact me here or on my talk page. I'm hoping to establish guidelines for creating, editing, and tagging articles on major exhibitions and to begin improving articles in this area of Wikipedia. OR drohowa (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up on Deletion Review Decision: Peter Pakeman

Thank you for your review and comments. The subject is confident that he can obtain permissions to publish the references in question; however, to avoid at lost of angst for all involved, your assistance in understanding how best to proceed would be appreciated. Knowing that you could not access the deleted references, I could ask the subject to get them to you so that you can a least review it and make an assessment. If your assessment is positive, then the subject would proceed with obtaining the permissions. Is this a reasonable approach?Xave2000 (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

as an admin, I can see the deleted article. I have quite limited knowledge of sports, and am therefore not really able to work on this further. However, as I understand the discussion at the deletion review, the problem is that none of the submitted refs proved he had actually played in a professional game, and it is I believe well established that it is necessary to actually play in a regular season game on the field in order to qualify here. Whether the college competitions add up to notability is best decided by those who know the subject. As I understand the discussion they thought otherwise, and I expressed no opinion about that, DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. What's odd about the rationale for the decision was that it hinged on the fact that they were unable to access the reference [File:North York Rockets Program Insert (August 1987).pdf]. What follows in quotes are excerpts from the decision."I can't check your files.... and as such I see nothing at all verifiable. If we can't verify any claims we can't use them... So ultimately I literally can't see any evidence supporting his notability or even that he existed." (Note: Prior to the deletion review, the reference [File:North York Rockets Program Insert (August 1987).pdf] was accessible by the Administrator, Mark.) Are you able to access the reference [File:North York Rockets Program Insert (August 1987).pdf]?Xave2000 (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up on Deletion Review Decision: Peter Pakeman

Thank you for your review and comments. The subject is confident that he can obtain permissions to publish the references in question; however, to avoid at lost of angst for all involved, your assistance in understanding how best to proceed would be appreciated. Knowing that you could not access the deleted references, I could ask the subject to get them to you so that you can a least review it and make an assessment. If your assessment is positive, then the subject would proceed with obtaining the permissions. Is this a reasonable approach?Xave2000 (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

as an admin, I can see the deleted article. I have quite limited knowledge of sports, and am therefore not really able to work on this further. However, as I understand the discussion at the deletion review, the problem is that none of the submitted refs proved he had actually played in a professional game, and it is I believe well established that it is necessary to actually play in a regular season game on the field in order to qualify here. Whether the college competitions add up to notability is best decided by those who know the subject. As I understand the discussion they thought otherwise, and I expressed no opinion about that, DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. What's odd about the rationale for the decision was that it hinged on the fact that they were unable to access the reference [File:North York Rockets Program Insert (August 1987).pdf]. What follows in quotes are excerpts from the decision."I can't check your files.... and as such I see nothing at all verifiable. If we can't verify any claims we can't use them... So ultimately I literally can't see any evidence supporting his notability or even that he existed." (Note: Prior to the deletion review, the reference [File:North York Rockets Program Insert (August 1987).pdf] was accessible by the Administrator, Mark.) Are you able to access the reference [File:North York Rockets Program Insert (August 1987).pdf]?Xave2000 (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siyani Chambers

Hi DGG, you may want to tweak your deletion rationale as the article is about a basketball player not college football player. I presume it's a typo just thought I'd let know. Have a nice day. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

DGG, I'm wondering why you put up the Siyani Chambers page for deletion. While I acknowledge that the article is not as well cited as it should be, I am at a loss to find what about the page makes it eligible for deletion. There are a variety of different national sources on the page, making it clear that he has received national coverage. It is also confusing because there are pages for Kevin Noreen and other people who have been named Minnesota Mr. Basketball (an award Chambers received) that are far less noteworthy than Chambers. I'm worried that the article will be deleted simply because someone with more wikipedia experience thinks that it should be. Please respond so that I can know what I need to do in order to keep the page up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupert'sscribe (talk • contribs) 01:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Twitter feeds

Is it appropriate to include twitter feed addresses in biographical articles? I guess Facebook pages would be a similar issue. Is there a generalized noticeboard where content issues such as this one are discussed? Thanks for any assistance you can provide. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The rules are at WP:EL. They apply to all articles. The place for questions or problems is the Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. — The general rule is that it is not appropriate to to give a subject's twitter feed or facebook page, or other social networking site, except when it is the main official page of the subject of the article. There's also an exception for when the site is the actual subject of the article, which is rare, but does happen. Sometimes in addition they can be necessary as a reference.

My personal practice is to remove these links as I see them if I am doing other editing on the article.. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI

User talk:Kudpung#G13 postponed submissions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Portfolios with Purpose AfD

Hi DGG, I'm not sure what " managed to get a good deal or pits press releases published." means - I presume there's a type or two there. Dougweller (talk) 10:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

fixed, thanks. it was meant as "a good deal of its press releases " DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Apache Marmotta

I'm confused by the situation. I definitely understand that it's software, but as I read the deleted content, it's a web project and thus the "web content" mentioned by the A7 criterion. Could you explain more why you disagree? Nyttend (talk) 06:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Undeleted. Thanks very much for the careful response; I was on the verge of going to sleep, or I would have responded sooner. I still disagree, as in my eyes, the point about the software is that computer stuff that's not web content is not eligible. Your comments at WT:CSD will be welcome, as I'm just about to create a request for clarification. Nyttend (talk) 13:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siyani Chambers

Hi DGG, you may want to tweak your deletion rationale as the article is about a basketball player not college football player. I presume it's a typo just thought I'd let know. Have a nice day. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

DGG, I'm wondering why you put up the Siyani Chambers page for deletion. While I acknowledge that the article is not as well cited as it should be, I am at a loss to find what about the page makes it eligible for deletion. There are a variety of different national sources on the page, making it clear that he has received national coverage. It is also confusing because there are pages for Kevin Noreen and other people who have been named Minnesota Mr. Basketball (an award Chambers received) that are far less noteworthy than Chambers. I'm worried that the article will be deleted simply because someone with more wikipedia experience thinks that it should be. Please respond so that I can know what I need to do in order to keep the page up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupert'sscribe (talk • contribs) 01:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Clarification about Primary and Secondary Sources

Hello, sorry if I bother. I wanted to ask a clarification about primary vs. secondary sources and I thought you might help me. In the case of Apache Marmotta, is the Apache Software Foundation considered a secondary source? I am reading through "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources" article, and I still have doubts. --Devbug (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

This situation does not fit well into the guidelines. In some sense everything covered by the Apache licensing is not independent of the Foundation, But looked at another way, only the primary instruction manuals for the system are primary sources. For purposes of verifiability, these sources are good in any case, because normally for any sort of product the manufacturer's instructions are the most accurate material available. The question is whether the sources are sufficiently independent to be the multiple reliable third party substantial secondary sources needed to show notability under the GNG. Decisions about this have varied. Ideally, one wants to show that other people not connected with the software at all write about it. In making decisions about notability of software, that iti s substantial use elsewhere usually shows notability . That academic papers are written about it usually shows notability. (The problem usually occurs not with computer software in general but computer games and entertainment franchises, where essentially all the published material, no matter how independent it looks, is normally written by or with the company.) For the particular article under discussion, I do not know it it will pass AfD --the only way to find out is to take it there. I think however that even under what I consider the extremely eccentric view that software intended to be used on the web is covered by A&, there;'s enough material to indicate significance. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, this is enlightening. This software was originally known under another name (Linked Media Framework), I should make some more research and document relevant sources. While I see that others contributed to the article, I feel that some more effort should be spent to make the article more understandable. I might look for more feedback in the future: thanks for your time and happy holiday! Devbug (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Portfolios with Purpose AfD

Hi DGG, I'm not sure what " managed to get a good deal or pits press releases published." means - I presume there's a type or two there. Dougweller (talk) 10:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

fixed, thanks. it was meant as "a good deal of its press releases " DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Biher-Tigrinya

Dear DGG: Is this one of the submissions that you were talking about that need merging? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Comparing the two articles, I see the AfC is much fuller on the history, so it would seem that needs merging. But looking a little further, there's an fuller history at Habashe people, and it would not be necessary to merge. Each suggested merge has to be seen on its own merits. There are two relevant AfC templates. "Already exists" and "Too short, but could be merged into Article". This one was in the Already exists group, which I think was the correct tag. I

I notice, however, that the instructions are that ifIf you find an article on the same subject, decline the article. But this is downright wrong--the instructions should be if you find an equally good or better article on the same subject, decline the content. The wording should match the wording for CSD A10: "A recently created article with no relevant page history that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect. "

I was thinking more about the second group, which are special topics , not duplicates: two examples are Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Blue OLED and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/El Sápéyo, the Old Name for Glorieta and Pecos, NM In all the articles I've checked I think there was just one were the editor went back and actually did the merge. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

National Tyres and Autocare

I'm surprised you deleted this; while it wasn't a very good article, it wasn't overly promotional. Could you reconsider and let me know what you think? Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

restored DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people/RfC: Change duration from 10 to 7 days

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people/RfC: Change duration from 10 to 7 days. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

National Tyres and Autocare

I'm surprised you deleted this; while it wasn't a very good article, it wasn't overly promotional. Could you reconsider and let me know what you think? Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

restored DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked a user

Hey, I blocked User:Starkmole a few minutes ago. It looks like they really were just here to post an agenda, as they recently posted a link that's pretty anti-Stark County Historical Society. You and I both gave them a warning about using Wikipedia as a soapbox and they seem to have ignored it. The only thing on the EL they tried to add was a propaganda YT video. In any case, I just wanted to give you a head's up since I remembered that I'd mentioned it to you at one point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

inevitable. Please keep an eye on the article, because I think they'll be back. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Sad but true, eh? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Vietnamvat

I do think this editor deserves a break, the recent copyvios that I saw were simply one line DoB, DoD & honours lists, & I do think this business will teach him something about creating WP articlesTheLongTone (talk) 12:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

done. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hope I'm not wrong!TheLongTone (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Inquiry about a newly created article

Hello DGG!
I just noticed an article created today, 27 December 2013, Children of The Night. You are listed in the talk page as having EDIT accepted it for creation and assigned it "Start" class as part of WikiProject assessment. It has no Wikilinks, nor any cited references, NPOV or otherwise.

This seems highly anomalous, in two respects, first, that you would give it start rather than stub class, and second, that it passed through your purview and that you didn't take any action to halt its creation. How is this article in an acceptable state to pass Afc review? I am not taking a hostile or aggressive stance with my inquiry, as I decided not to be offended because of your prior intimation that I wanted to bring down the capitalist system, although it was not the right time for that :o)
Happy New Year!
Your friend, Ellie
--FeralOink (talk) 12:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I have returned. Here's a horrendously awful excerpt from a biography by Scott Donaldson of EAR (author of the aforementioned poetry collection, Children of the Night) and published by Columbia University Press, EAR by Scott Donaldson, which could be used an external link for that WP article that you assessed/approved. Although the biography was first published in 2007, the reviewers tab features praise from poet Robert Frost, who died in 1961! (Robert Frost wasn't truly praising Donaldson's book, nor was he even praising EAR. Frost's quotation is something to the effect that EAR had made a career out of being miserable ;o) Sorry, Frost said, "Robinson's theme was unhappiness itself". On the other hand, David Yezzi, 'Wall Street Journal' said it was "[A] sterling biography" so that, plus the publisher being Columbia University Press, should justify its inclusion as a satisfactory reference source for WP articles).

I'm sorry, I didn't notice the reference to Harold Bloom's 'The Best Poems of the English Language: From Chaucer Through Robert Frost' in your Afc reviewed article. Harold Bloom mentions "the incantation of Luke Havargal" by EAR, on pp. 16-17, but only in passing, not as an actual Best Poem of the English Language as denoted by a section heading. In fact, he totally reams Edgar Allan Poe as a derivative hack in a prior paragraph on page 16, then praises EAR for speaking in Shelley's voice instead of his own. As a result, I am uncertain whether Bloom is praising EAR, or sarcastically and amusingly ridiculing him. But I am a mere statistician, what do I know about poetry? Donaldson praises EAR while reaming Edmund Wilson, whom I liked a lot, other than The Milhollands and their Damn Soul, so I clearly don't know what's good :o) The reason I mentioned any of this is so that you could improve the cited reference to Harold Bloom's tome by including page numbers, as the entire work is approx 800 pages in length.

Finally, the first paragraph of the WP article on Children of the Night (I thought that was a Shymalan movie, but again, I am something of a modern cultural Philistine) is so poorly written that it is unclear whether Theodore Roosevelt interceded to secure a sinecure for EAR with U.S. Customs, or for Theodore Roosevelt's own son. I would have re-punctuated it for clarity, but it reads so laughably that I am not certain of the veracity, and of course, there is no reference cited.

EAR is an abysmal poet and Donaldson is an abysmal writer of literary biographies! Much of the critique on talk pages of Wikipedia is far superior to Donaldson. Too bad that Columbia University Press couldn't publish us instead. It would be more lucrative, and rather educational insofar as demonstrating the method (behind-the-scenes, if you will) of literary criticism, whether prose, poetry or non-fiction. You write very nicely. Columbia could appoint you as editor, and title it "Collected Works of Best of Wikipedia Talk Pages, Volume One". --FeralOink (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, one last visit, I promise! "Children of the Night" was NOT a Shymalan movie, nor was "Children of the Corn". I was confusing them with Shymalan's "The Village". However, I now recall why I was confused! Indulge me, please? I am certain that you will enjoy this delightful example of Wikipedia talk page literary criticism. Shymalan is mentioned here in the archives of the Children of Men article. It evokes the style of French Symbolist allusion à la T.S. Eliot while referencing Shymalan, Children of Men and the Wasteland , the perhaps-benediction of "Shanti, Shanti, Shanti" via T.S. Eliot himself, and one final Shanti. I can't think of a better example of synthesis, modern and post-modern, drolly and fluently touching upon a huge swathe of human achievement, extending back to Sanskrit (and the possible beginning of civilization in the Indus River Valley). The WP talk page repartée and rejoinders are sprinkled with grace notes of dialogue among editors with amusing names, with amusing asides about markdown syntax for verisimilitude. It makes me laugh, then feel so proud and fortunate to be exposed to such wonderfully, clever, well-read, well-educated Wikipedia editors who share of their knowledge and time to help others. I start out sarcastically sometimes, and then am reeled back in with admiration and gratitude that there are other people in this world who understand. I wish I could meet all of you, even the trolls, whom I want to believe are merely misunderstood and disenfranchised, thus acting out their sorrow and anger. It would be so fun, like a dream come true! Maybe even like going to Heaven.--FeralOink (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

As for the article, I was more careless than usual. I sometimes am when I work too late at night. I'll fix it. As for EAR, I know he's part of the traditional canon, and we should have at least sketches on each major work by each major writer. Whether we should have separate articles is another matter, but I think so few people here can competently write long articles that the very short ones are safer to start with.

As for literary criticism, I'm an amateur. I prefer history to fiction, though I find them very similar. The fascination of both is to understand what people do, and the constraint of reality makes it the more challenging--there has to be a true answer, though we will never find it. The only period of literature I know well is fiction of the age of Johnson through Austen, where I have read literally everything by the major and some of the minor novelists. I've also read the criticism, up through about 30 years ago, when the person I was principally helping finished their thesis. I find the most interesting critics the ones I only partially agree with, and Bloom certainly qualifies--his idiosyncrasies are infuriating and inconsistent, but is usually stimulating. My knowledge of 20th century literature is spotty, there is not one major writer where I've read all their works, many where I've read none. Not only haven't I read or seen the versions of Children of Men, I didn't know of their existence until a few minutes ago. Dystopian fiction I increasingly dislike, as the real world is too rapidly approaching the most pessimistic of it.

Any writing skill I bring to WP is acquired through book reviewing for Choice, which has fixed word limits and therefore requires thought to get as much meaning in the 300 words as possible, though they usually let me run over. What I say there matters, because smaller academic libraries buy in large part based on their reviews. I have the same seriousness here: this is not a hobby for me, but a third profession, after biology and librarianship.

Since we cannot all meet in person, I am have become very grateful for Skype. But if anyone ever visits NYC, it's fascinating to learn how different most people are from their persona here. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate Google Books metadata

Hi DGG,

A while ago someone pointed out a 2012 study which sampled Google Books entries and found 36% had metadata errors. I thought it would be useful to point that out somewhere in the Wikipedia:Citing sources guideline, and to suggest giving more information to make verification easier. I proposed that at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Proposed clarification and feel like I stepped into a minefield. Perhaps you would care to comment. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

commented. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that. My instinct is to provide all the information I can in a citation in the hope that it will help anyone verifying the article to find what I found. It takes very little effort, so I have trouble seeing the objection. Aymatth2 (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

essentially, it's advisable to keep the rules as simple as possible to assist beginners. We have a long way to go in that direction,to compensate for the elaboration which was thought necessary at first. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Changes to Dody Weston Thompson Article

Hi David - I have revised the opening 3 paragraphs of the article to remove the 3rd person impersonal summary phrases. Also, those paragraphs function as an introduction to Dody's life and summarize the highlights of her career. Since all summary points in the introduction are footnoted in the body of the article, it is not, as far as I am aware of for academic standards for summaries/abstracts at the beginning of articles, necessary to have footnotes for the introductory paragraphs. Thanks. (Backstrand (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC))

Brian Halligan

Do you think this article is still promotional? I noticed you made some of the most recent edits to the page.

I use to have a COI about a year ago, though it doesn't look like I participated on this particular page. Although some of the content about his books could be moved to the articles on those books and there are a few minor unsourced, non-controversial items, I didn't think it particularly worse-off than most articles or that it needed a tag before, less now after my cleanup.

CorporateM (Talk) 00:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I can;t exactly put my finger on it, or figure out how to improve it, but it gives a hint of the tone often associated with promotional articles. I think it's a matter of there being the same kind of things to say. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Henry Ives Cobb, Jr., article edits question

Thanks very much for the time you recently spent reading and editing my article about American artist Henry Ives Cobb, Jr.

To refresh your memory, your most significant edit of the piece was condensing a few phrases about his activities at Harvard down to the statement that he graduated from Harvard, cum laude. I do want to make a small pitch for leaving the edited information in the article. While at Harvard, Cobb was a cartoonist for the Harvard Lampoon and was also in the Hasty Pudding Club with FDR. I think both of these (removed) facts are relevant to his later work as an artist -- particularly his show in the 1930's of political cartoons which demonstrated his virulent opposition to the New Deal and dripped with scorn and mockery for FDR, whom he knew personally.

Anyway, thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schandfleck (talk • contribs) 01:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, add the cartoonist. As for FDR, putting it there without explanation lacks context which is why I removed it. Either say something like "whom he was to satirize fiercely in his future work" or add it in parentheses when you talk about his cartoons. The article isn't perfect, btw; I am reviewing many, many old AfCs and I sometimes do just to enough to show notability clearly and make them acceptable. I would suggest trying for a little more concision, and combining some paragraphs. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

AfD candidates?

Hi DGG, I've seen your good work at AfD so thought I'd ask for your opinion if you have time. These are articles that I PROD'd as part of my new page patrol activities but the PROD tags were removed (in some cases by the article creator). I'd like a second opinion before I take them to AfD. Any thoughts?

• Gakio-Walton Scholarship - A few one line, one-event, mentions in minor secondary sources. The rest are primary (student newspapers, blogs etc.)
• Warden Boyd Rayward - All primary sources. Doesn't appear to meet WP:Academic IMHO.
• 2014 in home video - This is an ongoing series of annual lists but all sources are primary and link to the blue ray website which sells the videos. Any thoughts?

Thanks in advance. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, regarding Warden Boyd Rayward, its now been moved to W. Boyd Rayward and search results do turn up for the new version of the name [7] So maybe that one's OK> -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The article on the scholarship is impossible, but it doesn't fit into speedy, it will be a quick AfD. 2014 in homevideo is I think valid. If the individual works are notable , a list of them is appropriate, and all that is necessary is a reasonable RS that they are in fact scheduled. I don't think it would fall into WP:CRSTAL--the works have at least been produced & they are all from major studios. the question is how early the article should be made, but by the end of December 2013, it makes sense to me. I wouldn't advise starting the 2015 article for about a half year at least. the Rayward article needs expansion--the information there certainly does not show notability. But his faculty page and especially his [8] cv] shows he's notable --he was dean of the most important library school in the world (Chicago, till it closed), and emeritus Professor the one of the best of the surviving ones (Illinois) But Worldcat shows several books written, several edited, a goodnumber of important special issues edited, and a few dozen articles in good journals.Some of the book have significant holdings for works in this field. I do not think that on the basis of his published work he can be safely can be called an expert on Otlet. He wrote an almost unknown book & a good journal article; it can be said he is interested in or does research on, or writes about, but not "expert" Even he admits in ref 1 his is not the major biography. I'd call him an historian of information science. I'll post this on the article talk p. I'm glad to have seen this; thanks for asking. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I saw this discussion, did a little homework, then sent the scholarship article to AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks to both of you for helping me to think through these and learn more of the fine points of AfD. I'll head over to the scholarship AfD and add my two cents there. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 07:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The 33 Strategies of War

The IP is re-adding the material you and I deleted earlier. Edward321 (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy reasons

Fair enough, I'll be more careful Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Inquiry about a newly created article

Hello DGG!
I just noticed an article created today, 27 December 2013, Children of The Night. You are listed in the talk page as having EDIT accepted it for creation and assigned it "Start" class as part of WikiProject assessment. It has no Wikilinks, nor any cited references, NPOV or otherwise.

This seems highly anomalous, in two respects, first, that you would give it start rather than stub class, and second, that it passed through your purview and that you didn't take any action to halt its creation. How is this article in an acceptable state to pass Afc review? I am not taking a hostile or aggressive stance with my inquiry, as I decided not to be offended because of your prior intimation that I wanted to bring down the capitalist system, although it was not the right time for that :o)
Happy New Year!
Your friend, Ellie
--FeralOink (talk) 12:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I have returned. Here's a horrendously awful excerpt from a biography by Scott Donaldson of EAR (author of the aforementioned poetry collection, Children of the Night) and published by Columbia University Press, EAR by Scott Donaldson, which could be used an external link for that WP article that you assessed/approved. Although the biography was first published in 2007, the reviewers tab features praise from poet Robert Frost, who died in 1961! (Robert Frost wasn't truly praising Donaldson's book, nor was he even praising EAR. Frost's quotation is something to the effect that EAR had made a career out of being miserable ;o) Sorry, Frost said, "Robinson's theme was unhappiness itself". On the other hand, David Yezzi, 'Wall Street Journal' said it was "[A] sterling biography" so that, plus the publisher being Columbia University Press, should justify its inclusion as a satisfactory reference source for WP articles).

I'm sorry, I didn't notice the reference to Harold Bloom's 'The Best Poems of the English Language: From Chaucer Through Robert Frost' in your Afc reviewed article. Harold Bloom mentions "the incantation of Luke Havargal" by EAR, on pp. 16-17, but only in passing, not as an actual Best Poem of the English Language as denoted by a section heading. In fact, he totally reams Edgar Allan Poe as a derivative hack in a prior paragraph on page 16, then praises EAR for speaking in Shelley's voice instead of his own. As a result, I am uncertain whether Bloom is praising EAR, or sarcastically and amusingly ridiculing him. But I am a mere statistician, what do I know about poetry? Donaldson praises EAR while reaming Edmund Wilson, whom I liked a lot, other than The Milhollands and their Damn Soul, so I clearly don't know what's good :o) The reason I mentioned any of this is so that you could improve the cited reference to Harold Bloom's tome by including page numbers, as the entire work is approx 800 pages in length.

Finally, the first paragraph of the WP article on Children of the Night (I thought that was a Shymalan movie, but again, I am something of a modern cultural Philistine) is so poorly written that it is unclear whether Theodore Roosevelt interceded to secure a sinecure for EAR with U.S. Customs, or for Theodore Roosevelt's own son. I would have re-punctuated it for clarity, but it reads so laughably that I am not certain of the veracity, and of course, there is no reference cited.

EAR is an abysmal poet and Donaldson is an abysmal writer of literary biographies! Much of the critique on talk pages of Wikipedia is far superior to Donaldson. Too bad that Columbia University Press couldn't publish us instead. It would be more lucrative, and rather educational insofar as demonstrating the method (behind-the-scenes, if you will) of literary criticism, whether prose, poetry or non-fiction. You write very nicely. Columbia could appoint you as editor, and title it "Collected Works of Best of Wikipedia Talk Pages, Volume One". --FeralOink (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, one last visit, I promise! "Children of the Night" was NOT a Shymalan movie, nor was "Children of the Corn". I was confusing them with Shymalan's "The Village". However, I now recall why I was confused! Indulge me, please? I am certain that you will enjoy this delightful example of Wikipedia talk page literary criticism. Shymalan is mentioned here in the archives of the Children of Men article. It evokes the style of French Symbolist allusion à la T.S. Eliot while referencing Shymalan, Children of Men and the Wasteland , the perhaps-benediction of "Shanti, Shanti, Shanti" via T.S. Eliot himself, and one final Shanti. I can't think of a better example of synthesis, modern and post-modern, drolly and fluently touching upon a huge swathe of human achievement, extending back to Sanskrit (and the possible beginning of civilization in the Indus River Valley). The WP talk page repartée and rejoinders are sprinkled with grace notes of dialogue among editors with amusing names, with amusing asides about markdown syntax for verisimilitude. It makes me laugh, then feel so proud and fortunate to be exposed to such wonderfully, clever, well-read, well-educated Wikipedia editors who share of their knowledge and time to help others. I start out sarcastically sometimes, and then am reeled back in with admiration and gratitude that there are other people in this world who understand. I wish I could meet all of you, even the trolls, whom I want to believe are merely misunderstood and disenfranchised, thus acting out their sorrow and anger. It would be so fun, like a dream come true! Maybe even like going to Heaven.--FeralOink (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

As for the article, I was more careless than usual. I sometimes am when I work too late at night. I'll fix it. As for EAR, I know he's part of the traditional canon, and we should have at least sketches on each major work by each major writer. Whether we should have separate articles is another matter, but I think so few people here can competently write long articles that the very short ones are safer to start with.

As for literary criticism, I'm an amateur. I prefer history to fiction, though I find them very similar. The fascination of both is to understand what people do, and the constraint of reality makes it the more challenging--there has to be a true answer, though we will never find it. The only period of literature I know well is fiction of the age of Johnson through Austen, where I have read literally everything by the major and some of the minor novelists. I've also read the criticism, up through about 30 years ago, when the person I was principally helping finished their thesis. I find the most interesting critics the ones I only partially agree with, and Bloom certainly qualifies--his idiosyncrasies are infuriating and inconsistent, but is usually stimulating. My knowledge of 20th century literature is spotty, there is not one major writer where I've read all their works, many where I've read none. Not only haven't I read or seen the versions of Children of Men, I didn't know of their existence until a few minutes ago. Dystopian fiction I increasingly dislike, as the real world is too rapidly approaching the most pessimistic of it.

Any writing skill I bring to WP is acquired through book reviewing for Choice, which has fixed word limits and therefore requires thought to get as much meaning in the 300 words as possible, though they usually let me run over. What I say there matters, because smaller academic libraries buy in large part based on their reviews. I have the same seriousness here: this is not a hobby for me, but a third profession, after biology and librarianship.

Since we cannot all meet in person, I am have become very grateful for Skype. But if anyone ever visits NYC, it's fascinating to learn how different most people are from their persona here. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject Exhibitions/Conferences

See conversation at User talk:OR drohowa#WP:Exhibitions for my convo with JohnBod on this Project. Hoping for more responses also on the various other WikiProjects I posted on asking for comments/support.. OR drohowa (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate Google Books metadata

Hi DGG,

A while ago someone pointed out a 2012 study which sampled Google Books entries and found 36% had metadata errors. I thought it would be useful to point that out somewhere in the Wikipedia:Citing sources guideline, and to suggest giving more information to make verification easier. I proposed that at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Proposed clarification and feel like I stepped into a minefield. Perhaps you would care to comment. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

commented. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that. My instinct is to provide all the information I can in a citation in the hope that it will help anyone verifying the article to find what I found. It takes very little effort, so I have trouble seeing the objection. Aymatth2 (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

essentially, it's advisable to keep the rules as simple as possible to assist beginners. We have a long way to go in that direction,to compensate for the elaboration which was thought necessary at first. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Changes to Dody Weston Thompson Article

Hi David - I have revised the opening 3 paragraphs of the article to remove the 3rd person impersonal summary phrases. Also, those paragraphs function as an introduction to Dody's life and summarize the highlights of her career. Since all summary points in the introduction are footnoted in the body of the article, it is not, as far as I am aware of for academic standards for summaries/abstracts at the beginning of articles, necessary to have footnotes for the introductory paragraphs. Thanks. (Backstrand (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC))

Brian Halligan

Do you think this article is still promotional? I noticed you made some of the most recent edits to the page.

I use to have a COI about a year ago, though it doesn't look like I participated on this particular page. Although some of the content about his books could be moved to the articles on those books and there are a few minor unsourced, non-controversial items, I didn't think it particularly worse-off than most articles or that it needed a tag before, less now after my cleanup.

CorporateM (Talk) 00:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I can;t exactly put my finger on it, or figure out how to improve it, but it gives a hint of the tone often associated with promotional articles. I think it's a matter of there being the same kind of things to say. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Henry Ives Cobb, Jr., article edits question

Thanks very much for the time you recently spent reading and editing my article about American artist Henry Ives Cobb, Jr.

To refresh your memory, your most significant edit of the piece was condensing a few phrases about his activities at Harvard down to the statement that he graduated from Harvard, cum laude. I do want to make a small pitch for leaving the edited information in the article. While at Harvard, Cobb was a cartoonist for the Harvard Lampoon and was also in the Hasty Pudding Club with FDR. I think both of these (removed) facts are relevant to his later work as an artist -- particularly his show in the 1930's of political cartoons which demonstrated his virulent opposition to the New Deal and dripped with scorn and mockery for FDR, whom he knew personally.

Anyway, thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schandfleck (talk • contribs) 01:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, add the cartoonist. As for FDR, putting it there without explanation lacks context which is why I removed it. Either say something like "whom he was to satirize fiercely in his future work" or add it in parentheses when you talk about his cartoons. The article isn't perfect, btw; I am reviewing many, many old AfCs and I sometimes do just to enough to show notability clearly and make them acceptable. I would suggest trying for a little more concision, and combining some paragraphs. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your thoughts and attention. I'll make the edits you suggested re: FDR and the later cartoons as soon as possible. And I hope I didn't imply the piece was perfect; it's a work in progress and I'll try to tighten it up over the coming weeks. Thank you again. Your work is much appreciated. Schandfleck (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

WP: Exhibitions

In light of the increase in GLAM projects internationally, I'd like to start a new WikiProject, WP:Exhibitions to help coordinate activities around major museum and gallery exhibitions. If you are interested in the project, please contact me here or on my talk page. I'm hoping to establish guidelines for creating, editing, and tagging articles on major exhibitions and to begin improving articles in this area of Wikipedia. OR drohowa (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

See conversation at User talk:OR drohowa#WP:Exhibitions for my convo with JohnBod on this Project. Hoping for more responses also on the various other WikiProjects I posted on asking for comments/support.. OR drohowa (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

AfD candidates?

Hi DGG, I've seen your good work at AfD so thought I'd ask for your opinion if you have time. These are articles that I PROD'd as part of my new page patrol activities but the PROD tags were removed (in some cases by the article creator). I'd like a second opinion before I take them to AfD. Any thoughts?

• Gakio-Walton Scholarship - A few one line, one-event, mentions in minor secondary sources. The rest are primary (student newspapers, blogs etc.)
• Warden Boyd Rayward - All primary sources. Doesn't appear to meet WP:Academic IMHO.
• 2014 in home video - This is an ongoing series of annual lists but all sources are primary and link to the blue ray website which sells the videos. Any thoughts?

Thanks in advance. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, regarding Warden Boyd Rayward, its now been moved to W. Boyd Rayward and search results do turn up for the new version of the name [9] So maybe that one's OK> -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The article on the scholarship is impossible, but it doesn't fit into speedy, it will be a quick AfD. 2014 in homevideo is I think valid. If the individual works are notable , a list of them is appropriate, and all that is necessary is a reasonable RS that they are in fact scheduled. I don't think it would fall into WP:CRSTAL--the works have at least been produced & they are all from major studios. the question is how early the article should be made, but by the end of December 2013, it makes sense to me. I wouldn't advise starting the 2015 article for about a half year at least. the Rayward article needs expansion--the information there certainly does not show notability. But his faculty page and especially his [10] cv] shows he's notable --he was dean of the most important library school in the world (Chicago, till it closed), and emeritus Professor the one of the best of the surviving ones (Illinois) But Worldcat shows several books written, several edited, a goodnumber of important special issues edited, and a few dozen articles in good journals.Some of the book have significant holdings for works in this field. I do not think that on the basis of his published work he can be safely can be called an expert on Otlet. He wrote an almost unknown book & a good journal article; it can be said he is interested in or does research on, or writes about, but not "expert" Even he admits in ref 1 his is not the major biography. I'd call him an historian of information science. I'll post this on the article talk p. I'm glad to have seen this; thanks for asking. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I saw this discussion, did a little homework, then sent the scholarship article to AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks to both of you for helping me to think through these and learn more of the fine points of AfD. I'll head over to the scholarship AfD and add my two cents there. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 07:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The 33 Strategies of War

The IP is re-adding the material you and I deleted earlier. Edward321 (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)