User talk:DGG

Current time: 03:28,   November   17   (UTC)

add new sections at the bottom, not the top                                        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 add new sections at the bottom, not the top

How do i lock a page? Need Help

Hi DGG, I don't know who else to contact. I manage a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Global_Trading. Day in day out some users are writing false information and hate speech for the company. It leaves me thinking if i can get the article locked or delete it off completely. Can you please assist me with it. --Mahmoodyaqub (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

About: your eloquent summary of what does and does not improves this project

Hi DGG, or if I may be so bold, David,
You wrote at WP:AN/I Archive691: <block quote>There is more than one valid way of working here. Some people prefer to create only high quality articles, even though they may do very few of them. Some prefer to create many verifiable articles of clear notability even though they may not be of initially high quality. As this is a communal project, I think every individual person is fully entitled to do whichever they prefer, and the thing to do about people who prefer otherwise than oneself is to let them work their way, while you work yours. The only choice which is not productive is to argue about how to do it, rather than going ahead in the way that one finds suitable.</block quote> Many editors include a statement about their attitudes to editing on their user pages. I am not one of them, that is until I came across what you wrote. I would really like to include this on my user page. While I can add anything at all I like to my user page subject to WP:USER PAGE, I nevertheless ask for your permission to add the quote. OK with you? I'm fine if you decline this.
--Shirt58 (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course. DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure I've seen you reference this essay

WP:TALKINGSOFASTNOBODYCANHEARYOU. Is my memory that faulty? I can't find it, and it's possible the syntax isn't precise. Did you use this a sort of irony? I seem to remember you used the link to represent bullying behaviors. I'm seeing one such user who seems to be wanting to turn the entire AfD process on its head by using such a technique. BusterD (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have sometimes used pseudo-links like these as a statement for their own sake, without writing an actual essay. I remember saying something like this, but I can't find it. I think this one was TALKINGSOMUCH... -- but I can't find it either. As for the problem, I've commented pretty extensively at AN/I: [1], and will comment at the RfC also, But please don't confuse the reasonable message, with which I am in agreement -- that Deletion Policy is overbalanced towards deletion, and one step towards rebalancing it would be to require some version of WP:BEFORE -- with the unreasonable way it is being over-expressed. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, David. I was a debater in school before "talking so fast" became the current style. I feel anything which games the system deserves appropriate response in order to keep the system sound. I appreciate your valid concern about deletion procedures being over-weighted toward one outcome. Thanks for your valuable comments in those forums. Be well. BusterD (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, I had forgotten that context. And so was I,in college--a very valuable experience, especially in facilitating the sort of intercampus experiences only the athletic teams otherwise gave occasion for. But the stimulus is interesting: if I take a turn at NPP, the amount of junk turns me for a while into a deletionist before I catch myself and stop being so unfriendly to all the newcomers. If I take a look at AfD, the number of unwarranted nominations makes me want to give a similarly snappy and unjust response to all of them, with the less than rational thought that if I argue against all of them, maybe there's a chance the good ones will make it. Several good inclusionists have run into trouble here falling into such temptation. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

uw templates

FYI. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you and I with our combined experience could go a long way to help develop this. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ping about Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings/Testing

Hi! If you still have suggestions for any of the 9 listed as "in-progress" at WP:UWTEST, please drop a note on the talk page for that template. We're going to start the new test now and would rather not change the templates in the middle, but it's easy to do a new test or simply incorporate changes afterward, since all we need is a week or so of data. I'm interested to see what you'd like to do, because my feeling is "the shorter the better" on these warnings. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Guide to information sources

This seems a bit strange to me. The one reference that I can access does not even mention the term "Guide to information sources". Perhaps it should be moved or redirected to a more suitable article? --Crusio (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

it's an appropriate article; I'm not sure there is a really standard term. The one I used in teaching was guides to the literature. The most common beginning words of the titles of such books is however, A guide to information sources in (subject), In any case, it can be much expanded, and I will do so: I know of over a hundred, many in multiple editions. Perhaps it should be List of guides to information sources, because dozens of them are notable individually--there will be substantial reviews for most of them; or perhaps not, because there are some that should be included but may not be, and, more important, I don't immediately want to write all the articles. DGG ( talk ) 16:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Scholar Indices and Impact

Could you perhaps have a look at this article and the remarks I made at this talk page and tell me what you think? Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

commented there. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Academy of Achievement

Hi there DGG, you were recently involved, briefly, on the discussion page about an organization called Academy of Achievement. Prior to November, it was much too promotional; at present, I think the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, as I've explained in a note on the article's discussion page—and as I see you warned in your previous note on the same page. I think I endorse your viewpoint that an EduCap article could be created to address its controversies, but the treatment it is given here represents a clear case of coatracking.

It's worth noting that I've been engaged by the Academy to help resolve the matter; in hopes of doing so efficiently, I've prepared a proposed replacement (in my user space here) that I hope presents an acceptable compromise, or a workable starting point. Hope you can join in discussion on that Talk page. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources

I'm finding more and more that newbies are misunderstanding about when primary sources are acceptable, or even if they are acceptable at all.

I started a look at some policy and guideline pages, but through typical over editing (such pages are typically edited/developed due to some current event or other), the primary sources explanations seem a bit watered down and too vague.

If you wouldn't mind, would you a.) help me find any and all pages relating to primary sources, and b.) would you be willing to help write a stand alone guideline concerning them, to better help editors understand usage and so forth? - jc37 02:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no simple guideline. partly because there is no definition of "primary sources" that applies to all types of subjects, and party because the possible uses of them in Wikipedia are very various. Attempts to write one are what have generated the present state of confusion. Just a few example example: to a historian, a newspaper is a primary source, because it is used as the data about which histories are written. To us it is a secondary source, because it's an professionally written and edited responsible covering of the events. To a biologist, a journal reporting research is a primary journal, as distinct from a journal that published review articles, but the actual primary source is the lab notebook. A historian of science studies both it and the publications as primary sources for the history. The same source can be both primary and secondary: an appellate court decision is both: it's the primary source for the wording of the decision, but it's a secondary source, and a highly reliable one, for the facts of the case and the appropriate precedents. In literature, the primary source is the work being discussed; the secondary source is the discussion, but the discussion is a primary source for the thoughts of the scholar in an biography of the scholar. For a fictional work, the work itself is, though primary, the best source for the facts of the plot, because it is more detailed and accurate than anything that may be based on it; for interpretation of motives, if not obvious, a wecondary source discussing the work must be used--but there is not clear distinction about what is sufficiently obvious. The practical distinction for Wikipedia is that primary sources which cannot be used as such except as illustrations are those that require interpretation, because we do not do interpretation, which is original research. A textbook is often given as an example of a tertiary source, being based mostly on review articles; but advanced textbooks usually discuss the actual research article themselves to a considerable extent. And some textbooks, like Knuth's books on TeX and Metafont, are actually the primary sources, because the material presented there was never discussed previously and is of his own invention--unless one wishes to consider the program coe as the primary source.

In any given situation at Wikipedia , the guideline however written will always require interpretation, and the authoritative place for interpretation is WP:RSN--even though the individual interpretations may be contradict each other; just as the authoritative determination of notability is Deletion Reviews, even though different discussions may contradict each other. An encyclopedia is not a machine-written summary, but a work of creative human judgment about what to include, how to source it, and how to present it. The concept that we just repeat what thesources say in a proportionate way is overly simplistic: it helps teach beginners the principles, but does not actually decide any non-trivial cases. The examples which makes that clearest are the unfortunate widespread use of selective quotation and cherry-icking in controversial articles. I'll get things started by copying this into an essay. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a very good start.

Due to some of the issues you note, I think I'm going to ask a few others to also help. (User:Black Falcon in particular I have found is great when it comes to policy/guideline page creation/editing, as well.) - jc37 02:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I suspect there will not be complete agreement; but since RS is a guideline explaining the details of the fundamental policy WP:V, the practical course will be to indicate the accepted range of variation rather than try to find an actual single wording--attempts at that are usually either vague, or do not actually have the claimed consensus, because different people go on to interpret it their own way regardless of what gets written. (yes, I propose that as a general approach to writing guidelines) DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Ever get around to copying this into an essay yet? : ) - jc37 14:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have just seen your extremely helpful reply above and, as I was reading it, I thought it would be well worth making into an essay. I am glad you think so too! Coming from a scientific background I had no difficulty in understanding that WP "original research" was merely a term of wikispeak and that "verifiability" is such an odd word that it could have no obvious connotation. However, it took me a long time to realise that, when people were saying "primary", "secondary" or "tertiary", they were meaning something quite unlike anything I had understood. Thincat (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I will try this weekend. But "verifiability" is a relatively straightforward concept: it means the material in the article must be able to be shown accurate by published sources. We have no way of judging what is really true , because we have no research capability, and few editors with the recognized professional standing to check submissions by academic standards. We therefore rely on outsiders to do that, in publications that have editorial supervision. Whether we "should have such editors and give them authority is a rather complicated question & I'm going to incorporate some material I wrote for Foundation-L about this problem. (My view, briefly, is that we should not do so, but rather go as far as we can the way we have been working. There is a need for an comprehensive freely available encyclopedia with proper scholarly editing, but I don't think our methods can produce one. If it is tried, it should be as a separate project, but the experience at Citizendium has been very discouraging. The most problematic questions are: who will pick the experts?, and , what if they disagree?. DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

On newbies and deletion

Hey David. Just saw your comments on the Village Pump thread about AfD etc. and wanted to say:

1. Thank you for the thoughtful commentary
2. I agree with you about requiring more human communication. If you want to talk about actually making that happen, then let's talk. But in the meantime we're trying to slowly but surely improve those related notifications, and your feedback on the work so far would be welcome here (See "templates tested" for a look at the different messages).

We have some very clear recommendations for next tries at new notifications for both PROD and AFD, which we will be publishing in a more succinct list soon. (Notes are on Meta, if you're interested.)

Thanks again, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

yes, I'll get back there. But as you can see from the item just above,I do not have the luxury of being able to concentrate on any one thing here. sometimes everything appears equally important. And, as you can also see from the line it italics there, everything seems inter-related. We can't improve articles without more people. We can't get more people unless we fix our processes of working with articles. We can't stop to fix our processes when there are so many urgently needed specific actions such as the flood of promotionalism. So I try to work by turns everywhere. DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it's our unique chicken and egg problem. :) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

anyway.  Tonkie (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stella Parton discography

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Stella Parton discography. 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. — RFC bot (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Strayer University

On Talk:Strayer University, you mentioned that you wanted to make some edits to the draft version created by Hamilton83 found at User:Hamilton83/my sandbox. Were you still planning to make those changes? Would you like some time to do that, or is it okay if I move over draft into mainspace? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll get there today. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Not yet ready--see my comments there. DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Lists of self-publishing companies

Inan effort to improve sourcing in our articles, me and a couple other editors have created two lists of self-publishing companies:

• List of self-publishing companies in article space for notable self-publishing houses
• WP:List of self-publishing companies in Wikipedia space for notable and non-notable self-publishing houses

It's our hope that by maintaining such lists, it will be easier for editors to identify self-published books. In a discussion at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia reliability talk page, The Blade of the Northern Lights said that you and another editor know vanity publishers very well.[2] If you can provide any assistance with these two lists, it would be greatly appreciated. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

a very useful project--it makes sense to have both lists, & I will add to the WP list as I see them, I shall check them both; because these can be considered potentially derogatory listings, they must have good references. It may be necessary to qualify the statements in some cases. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Quest, that is an excellent idea; DGG, that is an excellent caveat. BTW, Cambridge Scholars Publishing wants to publish the proceedings of your last faculty meeting/conference/Jane Austen Book Club. You'll get a letter on really nice looking letterhead in the next week or two. Quest, this goes for you as well. And for everyone, really. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Self-publishing

Hi, we are still hoping you would make some suggestions on Talk:List_of_self-publishing_companies#evidence. Your help will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

haven't forgotten: I will get there tomorrow or this weekend. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Tropes in Agatha Christie's novels

Hi. Glad the article has been, for now, restored to its former glory. I was thinking about AFDing it as it was worthless as a stub. Unfortunately, while I read almost all her mysteries I don't have most of the actual paperbacks I bought or collected aeons ago. I do have a couple or so paperbacks and I'll do my best. Yours, Quis separabit? 16:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I finally found the old paperbacks; there were more than I thought. Is it ISBN#s and page numbers you're needing? Yours, Quis separabit? 20:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Stevens Institute of Technology page

Hi DGG, I saw that my original note on your talk page was archived, so I'm adding this to make sure it doesn't get lost from your radar as there is clearly a lot of incoming requests on your page! This is the link to the latest correspondence, ready for your review. Talk:Stevens Institute of Technology#Updating_page_along_guidelines_for_college_and_university_articles

Thank you! QueenCity11 (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

haven't forgotten: I will get there tomorrow or this weekend. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Great, thank you! QueenCity11 (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"I haven't forgotten. I'll get there soon. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the update - very much appreciated! QueenCity11 (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I still haven't forgotten. Some discussions this last week were rather long to deal with, & I'm a little behind. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem - I appreciate that you have been keeping me posted. Yesterday I spent some time updating dead reference links since Stevens switched over to a new website. Thank you again. QueenCity11 (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi DGG -- Just wanted to check if you have a sense of when you may be able to review. I am getting pressed for an update and want to report back with the latest. Thank you again! QueenCity11 (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I shall try to get to it this evening. DGG ( talk ) 16:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi - Just wanted to check if you think you'll be able to review soon. I appreciate all the help and guidance you have provided thus far. If you would prefer that I look for help from another editor at this point, that is fine - please just let me know. Thank you! QueenCity11 (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject NIH

Greetings DGG. I was looking at WikiProject NIH and it appears to be pretty inactive. Since you and one other are the only apparently active members I wanted to ask. Kumioko (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

the articles there certainly still need work: classic promotional institutional pages, in many cases, (much probably copied, and needs ref to the sources, though it US-PD) and overly brief summaries in others. Perhaps if its just the two of us we could simply divide them up. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I would certainly be glad to help out. I looked through some of them and your right theres definately some work to be done. I also noticed there seemed to be some that weren't tagged yet. I was also wondering if you think it would be ok if I did a couple things.

1. I would like to add the project to the Joint projects list of WPUS. The articles are already covered by both projects so it might help them a little and slightly increase the visibility of the NIH project.
2. I would like to expand the title on the template to spell out Institutes of Health. Of course I would leave the existing one as a redirect. I have had a couple folks ask me what it meant already (along with WikiProject SIA and AAA) so it might help a little.
3. There are several articles that aren't tagged yet that I would like to add to the project if you think that's ok. Kumioko (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

seems reasonable--just go ahead. I will look at some of the more extensive articles and do some trimming. (and some splitting--they include the bios of the Directors of the various institutes, but these people are sufficiently notable that they should be covered separately). I suggest you copy this discussion onto the talk p. of the project. I appreciate it very much that you're getting this re-started--I confess I had entirely forgotten that I meant to work on this. DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I moved the template to {{WikiProject National Institutes of Health}} and updated the template example on the project page. I will add it to the WPUS Joint prokects list shortly. Kumioko (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Ambassadors

Could you show me where it says ambassadors are automatically notable because. Bgwhite (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I'll be interested in that ... I PRODded someone recently who was ambassador to several countries but didn't seem to pass WP:DIPLOMAT,which seems to say that being an ambassador per se is not enough for notability. He was unPRODded after more content was added, don't know whether it's the person you're concerned with or not (current Thai ambassador to US I seem to remember). PamD 11:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, found him, Chaiyong Satjipanon, and I see Bgwhite has been there recently too. PamD 12:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

All that is needed to remove a prod is a disagreement that it should be deleted without a community discussion. Prods are for deletions that nobody is expected to contest. The way I judge it, is that it's the highest level of the profession. If you want to go by GNG, I would not rule it out without looking for sources in the country the person is accredited to as well as that which he comes from. In the past we've made the distinction between ambassadors who are notable, and consuls, who are not usually. As always, the community will either agree with me, or not. DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I deProded Chaiyong Satjipanon because being the ambassador to six nations, including the United States, would appear to be notable. I also found some Thai refs.

The one I did prod was an ambassador to Uganda and was a career civil servant. I highly respect DGG's opinions and have many written down as reference. However, deProdding with the edit summary saying "Ambassadors are notable" is misleading. Ambassadors are not automatically notable, especially where the majority of ambassadors for the U.S are political appointments who donated the most to a campaign. I have no problem with stating in the edit summary that you believe this person is notable, but don't say "Ambassadors are notable" as it sounds like Wikipedia policy. Bgwhite (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

What I say in an edit summary when I deprod is the reason i deprodded. it is not intended as a statement of policy. I consider ambassadors notable; I can't say consensus would support this 100% of the time, for consensus at AfD can depend on how carefully the matter is researched & argued—and on who happens to show up. I see no reason why an ambassador to the US should be more notable than an ambassador from the US -- or indeed any pair of countries. Checking, it seems about half the US ambassadors are career civil servants; the others are political or civic or business figures who are often even more notable for their outside careers. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Taxatio Ecclesiastica

Thought you might want to expand Taxatio Ecclesiastica.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

For cleaning up City University of Seattle! Your editing expertise is much appreciated and respected by this lowly Huggle jockey. Cheers! Jim1138 (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have just begun. DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Stevens Institute of Technology

Was this ever completed? Silverseren^C 21:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It will be this weekend. I know I've said it before two or three times, but I'm feeling embarrassed enough to actually do it, instead of trying to learn something I haven't done before (last week, the new version of the New Pages list, this week, AfC.) DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, i've been procrastinating plenty myself. How long has it been since I helped out at PAIDHELP? I spent yesterday working on Man With A Mission and trying to decipher horribly machine translated Japanese news sources. So, yeah. But i've pledged to work through the PAIDHELP page today and get everything done. Silverseren^C 21:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Your comment at WT:RFA

I've been piled up at work, and just now catching up on an excellent discussion at WT:RFA – far better than the usual "the sky is falling, what are we to do".

I did want to quibble with one observation you made; I'll do it here because no one seems to expand on your thought, so I don't see much need to insert it into the thread. Plus I'll use it as a point of departure to make another point, which I may add to the thread, after I've finished reading it.

You remarked, "I typically decline about 1/3 of the Speedy deletions I see, but some admins close essentially everything, Either I or they must be doing it wrong." I say, "not necessarily". To make an extreme example, suppose there are 1000 xSDs, with 100 of them badly tagged. If some new admins poke around, and delete 700 "easy" ones, that leaves 300 left of which 1/3 ought to be declined. So it is possible both can be right. Now, I'm not saying that 100% closers are always right, but we'd have to check some of the close lists to be sure. Which brings me to my pother point. When I was a new admin, I half expected someone would be assigned to follow me around for some time, just to make sure I was understanding the rules correctly. Either that didn't happen, or they were very, very quiet. (I'm even more surprised it isn't SOP at OTRS, but that’s a different issue.) I think we should have a more formal review system for new admins. I know there's the ability to check with someone else, but I'd like to see something more formal.

Having made my point, I'm not sure it belongs on the thread at this time, because my suggestion isn't going to help the problems that are being discussed at the moment, so maybe I'll think some more on it, and formalize a proposal later. Maybe after getting some thoughts from people like you.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You are quite correct--I was oversimplifying. Sensible new admins do only the ones that are totally obvious while they are starting--it must be very discouraging to have people revert your first admin actions, and I've seen that happen. And it is true that I will make a point of checking speedy nominations others have thought it wise to pass by, and AfDs that people don't seem to want to close; I know some others do just the same, which is how we keep long lags from developing. But I had in mind also a few long term admins who actually do decide almost all equivocal cases as delete. To expand on what you have said , in a direction of my own,

I have occasionally checked a new admins deletions if I think from the RfA there is likely to be some problems, and I suppose others do similarly. But I do not know if any people systematically reviews the admin logs the way people do new pages--if anyone does, I've noticed no sign of it. The only thing I've seen checked systematically is the very long-standing page protections. It might be a good thing to do. The AfD closes are very visible, the prods have been checked by several people before they get to the top of the list, but speedies and blocks and unblocka and protections and unprotections don't get looked at, unless someone suspects a problem. I have sometimes thought of doing it, but I have always stopped, because, to be frank about it, I don't want to see the errors. I can't pass over a clear error I do see, and I am fully aware that some admins use the tools beyond the proper limits. Some of these are my friends, & I can mention it to them from time to time quietly. But for obvious reasons most of the ones I would disagree with are by people I often disagree with, with whom relations are often not all that friendly. I don't want to spend all my time quarreling and navigating sticky situations; though I may get the errors corrected, it is not likely to improve mutual relations. (I am also aware that I too make both errors and borderline interpretations, & I suppose I even sometimes interpret things the way I would like them to be, & if I have any enemies here, I do not really want to encourage them to audit me with the utmost possible rigidity. I expect I could be able to very well support my interpretations, but as Samuel Johnson put it, nobody however conscious of their innocence wants to every day have to defend themselves on a capital charge before a jury.

When I started here, I wondered how a system with a thousand equally powerful admins who could all revert each other could possibly exist. I soon learnt the subtleties of wheel warring--there were some major arb com cases on it during my first year here which pretty much defined the limits. But more important, I also learned that even the more quarrelsome spirits here understood the virtues of mutual forbearance--and that even the most self-sufficient people do not really want to look publicly foolish. Our balance is I think over-inclined to protecting the guilty if they are popular enough, but it is not as bad as it could be, or as it often is in human societies. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I smiled at your closing comment. I had the same, thought, although for the project as a whole, rather than just the admin function. I'm more recent to the project because, when I first heard about it, a few years before actually joining, I thought about the model and decided it couldn't possibly work. Oddly, I still feel that way, intellectually. If there were no such thing as Wikipedia, and I heard a proposal to create, my instinct is that it will fail miserably. I actually can't quite put my finger on why it hasn't failed.SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Materialscientist#Impact factors and infoboxes

David, could you perhaps give your opinion on this issue? Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• I moved this down, perhaps you didn't see it... :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I have now commented. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks!! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

CityU of Seattle

Hi DGG, thank you for your message on my page. Sorry that I have corrected the article about CityU befor I've read your advice. I appreciate that you insist on beeing neutral in the tone of an article. But when the Swiss authorities have accused the headmaster of the CityU of fraud than I am not sure how you could say what happened without using the appropriate expressions, in this case "allegations" and "fraud". The article is (as I have written) not about a subsidiary. So for a reader it is of minor interest to read something about the Swiss branch, but if you want to inform you about the reputation of something or someone, than it's quite intersting to read about allegations of fraud. And I have of course read the Wikipedia policies about neutrality. They say that while neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. And ok, I don't think that the expression "allegations of fraud" is per se not neutral, but even if that should be the case and the term is not neutral, in my opinion it's the most clear description of what happened. This is, not just a university program that became unstable.Please tell me what you think about that, kind regards, saintcyr. PS: I think it doesn't matter whether someone has a personal involvement with the issue he's describing as long as his point of view is candid and based on facts. I think some of the best articles here are written by people with a personal involvement with the issue they are describing. But though you seem to think otherwise I can assure you I have no personal involvement in the CityU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintcyr1 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The matter must be included, but it can be done a little more subtly than you did it, as I shall demonstrate there. Among the techniques for doing this is use the word once in the article as a quotation; it need not be repeated. (And we'd need the quote not just in English translation, but in the original language used.) And it certainly must not be used in the section heading.: we do not make moral judgements, and through things are reported as there are, summaries must ber as absolutely neutral as possible. that goes for edit summaries also: loaded words should never be used there. And we consider the very word "allegations" to be non-neutral. And the entire section should be summarized, to avoid disproportionate weight. If negative information is reported disproportionately or loaded words used more than necessary, it gives the impression of holding a grudge, not of NPOV writing. It is my responsibility to prevent anyone from using Wikipedia for such a purpose, just as it is to prevent it being used to cover-up serious matters. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your point of view, but I still disagree with you on that. So I have opened a discussion on the matter on the CityU talk page. Saintcyr1 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 04:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

DGG's a tenured and well-respected administrator with a reputation for even-handedness and an excellent grasp of our policies. You would save everyone's time if you just took his advice on how to present such a controversy without disputing it. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I've commenting further, on the article talk p., Talk:City University of Seattle. I've tried to explain the standard WP policy, and also my general approach to this particular type of problems. DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

"What DGG says"

David, that was great. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Graduate Library School, University of Chicago, 1928-1989.

Hi David, this article could use some help from you. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It will get it, but not immediately. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review response thank you / Tutoring newbies on how to do online research

I left a thank you for your response — and unrelated question(s) — here. Another thing that maybe we agree on is the importance of knowing how to do research. I really like Wikipedia's Search Engine usage guidelines and tutorial, and have tried to link to them from Wikipedia:Article titles — because I think it's important to research usage when deciding the best article title, best category title, or the most appropriate term to use — but my attempts to link to this have been repeatedly reverted by people who think they own anything related to the MoS. Likewise, for the same reason, I have been unable to add links from Wikipedia:Article titles to the regional MoS guides. The article on category naming conventions also does not explain how to search existing categories or link to the above article on how to use search engines to research the best category title, either. Maybe you have some advice or ideas on this? LittleBen (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I discovered in my first year here that there were some parts of Wikipedia where despite my interest in the subject, for one or another reason I was unlikely to be very effective. Prominent among these were the MOS and categorization. I am a little concerned with article titles, and in that field, fundamentally I disagree with you -- I think the best article title should be the clearest and fairest, and counting ghits or the equivalent is usually irrelevant. And to the extent I understand categorization debates the problem there is often finding a sufficiently clear wording to encompass the desired set of article. I think the MOS is a little more rational than it was 4 years ago; if I were doing it, I'd limit to to pure matters of style, which does not include choice between article titles, just such matters as whether to use singular or plurals. But in questions like this , your opinion is as valid as mine, and there is no point in arguing the issue here--neither of us is "right". DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

My main question was aimed at getting your opinion on "Tutoring newbies on how to do online research". You don't seem to have answered this, but maybe this is something that Kudpung is more interested in than you are. My comment on article titles was related to this: there seem to be many people creating new articles without adequately researching if there is an existing article on the subject already. Part of the problem is that Wikipedia Search, by default, only shows if there is an article title that is an exact match to the search term; it does not show if there is a category that matches the search term. If it did, it would be far easier to find related material. It is difficult to work out how to search categories. Terminology (e.g. article titles and category titles) is often inconsistent for this reason. Just one example: There are Web browser engine and List of web browser engines articles, but there are nine Comparison of layout engines (XXX) articles, and the category is Category:Layout engines. I don't understand your reference to counting ghits, and don't understand how my viewpoint disagrees with yours. LittleBen (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I got another response on the Deletion review thread that pointed me to a discussion here that may interest you. LittleBen (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for not covering everything. The WP search function is not the problem; if it does not find an article, it suggests searching for the term. Perhaps the page could be revised to suggest that first, rather than as an alternative to making an article. I think there has been some previous debate on whether it should initially search for the term rather than the article. I also have seen it said that by the standards of other search engines, it could use some sophistication. About 1/3 of people come here from Google etc., and though those search engines rank article titles at the top, they also include articles with the term anywhere. But the Google search engine is, deliberately, getting dumber and dumber; it is no longer possible to use the "+" character as an intersection, and Google Scholar has removed the limit to subject field possibility in advanced search.

Many apparently duplicate articles are created deliberately as a POV fork, others in the mistaken belief that WP includes essays on very specific term-paper type topics. Many are simply naive, as when someone submits a two sentence article on something where we have extensive coverage.

I think teaching people to search properly is a part of research, but the main result of its failure is not the duplicate articles, but the unreferenced articles. Way back when Google was new and exciting, we librarians used to impress the students by showing we could use it more effectively than they could. (The secret is partially cleverness and experience in selecting search terms, but mainly just persistence--something like 90% of users stop at the first page of results--I will if necessary scan through even a few thousand. I have found that people learn by experience better than didactic instruction, provided they are alert enough to pay attention to what experience shows them. Certainly we should do a better job teaching beginners, but the way I think works best is to show them one at a time how to do better. A person learns best when one individual person shows them how to fix their errors and misconceptions, and this is not done by templates. Besides Kudpung & myself, very few NPPatrollers or even admins take the trouble and patience. It's too much for a few people--we need everyone who is able to do it. We progress not by discussing how to work, but by working. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we progress not by discussing how to work, but by working. You seem to be better at that (more productive) than I am ;-) But sometimes it's more scalable if we offer others the opportunity of learning how to do the work (not specifically thinking of Tom Sawyer ;-). Thanks and best regards. LittleBen (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI - user warnings

[3] As suggested. :) I think our next step is making sure that the code is correct, and then we can start implementing. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It was suggested by several people at Wikimania that we quickly make similar changes in level 4 and 4im, and then consider whether to combine levels--that part would need an rfc. The easiest way to go now would probably be to go to three levels, by combining 2/3 , to avoid having to rewrite the level 1 warnings. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

City University of Seattle

This article has come up at OTRS and I'm trying to get a handle on its current state. I see that some sourced negative statements were removed (diff) and then some unsourced positive statements too. (diff). I trust that this article has gotten the attention it needed and is under watchful eyes, but could you help me to understand why it was appropriate to remove all of the negative content as well? I briefly looked at the [German] sources and 3 of them looked initially ok while 3 clearly did not. Just looking for a little guidance if you get a minute. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 23:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I've neglected following up this one. I'll email you about it in a few minutes, as some of it is indeed on OTRS, and I need to give an opinion about individual motives. DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

tomorrow, actually--it's a little complicated. DGG ( talk ) 09:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Library portal

I just accepted the AfC submission for the Library portal article now in mainspace. Since I noticed in the past that you're a librarian, posting this article here for your perusal, if you have the time or interest in checking it out, improving it, making any corrections, etc. Regards, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for referring this to me. As you realised, this required subject knowledge. It's a valid topic, but even after your cleanup, still needed extensive further editing for conciseness and removal or original research; there were obvious indications of the origin of this as an essay or term paper. I did one round; I will do another later. DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking it out, and for the improvements. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Essay about Wikipedia

Hi DGG. I checked out your user page mini-essays - very interesting. Would you be available to talk about Wikipedia some time? I am writing about the philosophy and sociology of Wikipedia. 109.145.120.77 (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

certainly. Please make an account, activate yoiur email from preferences, and email me from the email user link in the toolbox on the right. DGG ( talk ) 15:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I created the account and set up email. I will mail shortly. Hestiaea (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Iwill get back to you, probably next week. things are a little busy. DGG ( talk ) 19:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography of Encyclopedias

You are invited to join in a discussion at User talk:Dr. Blofeld#Bibliography of encyclopedias over my plans to develop a comprehensive set of bibliographies of encyclopedias and dictionaries by topic. I hope you see the potential of such a project and understand that while highly ambitious it will be drawn up gradually over time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

PC

FYI. And FWIW, on a slightly different note regarding NPP, although I am not entirely in favour of creating a right for NPP, I fear that the question may become inevitable when the NewPagesFeed is finally released for general use and has been monitored for a while. The reviewer right (whatever that will be) could be a possible guideline, and might incorporate both if need arises. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

As I expect and hope & will try to get such an interpretation of PC that the reviewer right will be almost unused because almost nothing will be subject to PC, one could argue that it might as well serve some potentially useful purpose. I agree that if it is based on mainspace edits it might serve for both. But I think the priority is to get AfC and moves from user or other space into a single queue along with New pages. At the moment I'm working mainly on the afc part because the majority of advice being given people is inadequate, when not plain wrong. I think that proportionately more errors are made there than at NPP. DGG ( talk ) 13:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That's possible. I don't work at AfC but the articles I come across through other lonks demonstrate that a lot are not being accurately closed and/or with inadequate advice to the creators. I dn't know what kind of a percentage this represents. AfC seems to me to be a necessary process but unnecessarily complicated; I could well envisage a single queue where unpublished IP creations could pass through the same interface as the New Page Feed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Google scholar anomality

Hi DGG. In a past deletion debate one year ago which I found mightily suspicious (the submitter and the very last voter turned out to be single purpose-accounts in hindsight) you argued from your professional experience that worldcat holdings of about 100 and 2-3 reviews two years after publication would be normal. I took a look again and Duchesne's 2011 book "The uniqueness of Western civilization" has risen since from 60 to 160 university holdings and, according to his homepage, received 10 reviews by now (leaving out his reply to Elvin and amazon). I noticed Brill has published a paperback version this year, so they seem to consider the book a sales success. However, on Google Scholar the book still is listed as cited by none, even though many of the reviews can be retrieved via its database. Frankly, I cannot make sense of this. Do you have any idea and do you think his WP bio has reached the threshold of notability by now? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

GS citations are erratic, and their standards change, and nobody knows what they are. In the humanities, citations of a book are slow to develop as compared to journals. First, the book will only be cited by those at libraries who have the book, while a few of his articles are in widely held journals. Second, there is the time factor: a 2011 book will show up in a library about 2 - 12 months after publication, a journal shows up immediately after publication. And in the humanities, if someone reading a work decides to use it in an article, they would typically write the article in the next 2 - 12 months , and it would take in the humanities somewhere from 9 to 24 months before it was published. If the citation was to be in a book, of course it would take at least double that time at each stage and sometimes much longer.

Additionally, his writings are from a definite pov, not widely popular at present in the academic world. A very few people will write using his work to support theirs; more will use it as something to refute. But the key qy. is whether he is well known enough that anyone would want to specifically write to refute him, or whether they will just include him among the other theorists they are refuting the next time they write on the general subject. .

As for actual notability , you will have noticed that at the AfD I made no keep or delete comment. I limited myself to critiquing the bad arguments,particularly those from BG. I consider it borderline by my own standard for notability as an academic: whether a person is a full professor at a research university or of equivalent quality. The usual requirement for getting there in the humanities is at least two books from major scholarly presses. Brill is in most fields a minor press, except for near eastern studies, religion, and related subjects; and UNB is a good but not superlative university. Of his journal articles, some of them are in important journals--but most are in a few journals of a rather specialized nature. The publications list should have included only peer reviewed journal articles, not book chapters. What also influenced me is that the article was written in the typical way to make slightly important subjects look more so: material on the importance of his student work, on the importance of his advisors, of those he has debated with, of those who replied to him, What influences me now much more is that too much of the article is a close paraphrase of his web page, which I carelessly did not think to look at during the discussion. if I had, I would said delete.

If you want to try it again, rewrite it from scratch. But I do not think there is enough new information; even if BG stays away from WP the result might be the same, and another delete decision will make it much harder in the future. What is needed is another book--it would be much safer. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. Best Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge

Could you have a look at the discussion here and tell me what you think the proper title should be? I was pretty much convinced that I was right, until this editor brought up the Microsoft argument. So now I don't know any more... Although, if it's a stone rule that we should put the company name in front of the product name, would that also mean that Nature would have to become Nature Publishing Group Nature? :-) Seriously, your informed opinion is welcome. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Academic Journals are sui generis . I think WP naming conventions tend to lack rationality. I rarely engage in these debates because I disagree with some of the fundamental rules, like never disambiguating names until there is a conflict. DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Huon's talk page.
Message added 02:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Wikipedia Library

I assume you already know about The Wikipedia Library effort, but given your interest in getting editors access to these resources, I wanted to make sure you've seen this. Brianwc (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Unrelated

By the way, there's complex issue of COI and COATRACK at Retail loss prevention (see history and talk page.) Maybe you care to take a look at that too. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

yes indeed; a classic conflict of an industry white-washer and a consumer pov pusher. The whole thing needs to be redone; a small amount of the text in the various versions will be helpful. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know...

Regarding this, when the tag was applied the page was pretty much a straight copy from the source, with a few phrases changed out, and had been pretty much for its entire history. User:Rjensen deserves a Barnstar (which I will give him presently) for completely rewriting the article, which is of course an even better solution than deletion. Since your edit comment implied that the tag was improperly placed, I just wanted to assure you that it wasn't at the time I placed it, its just that intervening work made it so. Again, you did the right thing in declining the deletion request at the time you did, and Rjensen did some awesome work here, I just wanted to make sure you didn't think that I was tagging articles for deletion without carefully checking them. I had, it is just that the state of the article changed drastically from when I tagged it. The ideal result, altogether, if you ask me. --Jayron32 13:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

thanks for letting me know. My apologies. I've run into this before, and I should be more careful checking the history. But when the article is improved, the tag should really have been removed also. I think some people do not realize that anyone can remove a speedy except the guy who first submitted the article)--some people think it takes an admin. Quite the opposite--since anyone can do it, it makes excellent practice for people who wqnt to become admins to build up a record of good decisions. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, this entire sequence got me thinking about some stuff, and I started a thread at WP:VPP that you may find interesting or have some insight on. Penny for your thoughts... --Jayron32 18:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Robert Peernock

Ten months ago you declined a prod on this article. I am not disagreeing with your prod however I, stumbling upon the article, found it to have been since its origins based not on the BLP itself but as an article of undue weight that subscribes the man involved as a whistle blower and victim of conspiracy. These are the claims of Peernock himself from his own website, http://www.freerobertpeernock.com, when the reality is that he is a man who was convicted of murdering his wife and attempting to murder his daughters that has claimed they were framed. No one would, neutrally, rate him as a whistleblower or activist. The only whistle he has blown is that there is a conspiracy involving the prosecution, the judge, the jury, his own attorney, his daughter and a "judge's accomplice" who he claims murdered his wife for the judges benefit.

I am rather rusty with procedure, having been absent from wikipedia for a while due to real life situations, but I was hoping you could give some guidance on what to do in this article. It is tilted from its very beginning and I'm not too sure the notability of the book outweighs the individual himself. Many many convicted murderers claim of a far reaching conspiracy, wikipedia should not be a part of their whitewashing. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking more carefully than I did at first, I agree with you that the article should be deleted. What convinced me is checking the book about him, which was what I based my keep on: it is in only 41 libraries. Checking the author, he's a moderately notable minor crime writer with 5 books, his best known ones are in 600 & 400 libraries, so there will surely be reviews to show his notability. This offers a quick solution without the need for afd; I can easily do it tomorrow: writing a short article about the author, anthony Flacco, and list his books. This article can then be redirected there, which will at least give some identifying information here if anyone looks him up. OK? DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure a redirect would be appropriate, Peernock's life and biography is in no way tied to the life of Anthony Flacco. A redirect would not make much sense as those searching for Peernock, if there are any, are unlikely to be searching for the life of an author who subsequently wrote about the case. Also here's a link I forgot to include previously http://articles.latimes.com/1991-10-24/local/me-242_1_man-convicted-of-killing-wife –– Lid^(Talk) 06:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

To follow up will you be doing what you have suggested as an option? –– Lid^(Talk) 07:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Journal of Population Economics and Les Halpin

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Mephistophelian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rumi's Kimia

Hello DGG, I removed your prod from the above article as it has previously been listed at articles for deletion. Thank you. Rotten regard Softnow 19:56,

Jacob School of Biotechnology and Bioengineering and possible merge

I notied that you had placed a redirect on this article which had been reverted. To encourage resolution via Talk, I've added a Merge suggestion and opened it as a topic on the previous redirect target. AllyD (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:British Studies Seminar, University of Texas at Austin

Could you provide a subject template (we have the place template) for this article? --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Tomorrow's Company→User:Sladen/Tomorrow's Company

Hello DGG, could you undelete Tomorrow's Company to my userspace so that I can have a look over it. I just spent a couple of months working with a photographer to release File:Richard-Brown-Eurostar-and-Mark-Goyder-Tomorrows-Company.jpg under a suitable licence; the left-hand half of which I've used as File:Richard-Brown-Eurostar.jpg for the Richard Brown (transport) article; I had a mental note to also add the right-hand half to the Tomorrow's Company article (now deleted in the interim). —Sladen (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

moved. Check also earlier versions--I undeleted the entire history. I'll mention that a key problem with the article is the unsourced claims of being exceptionally important. The sources in the article, as said at the AfD are either self published or the speeches of their founder or mere mentions. Their web page calls them a "global think tank"; such sources as I can find call them a consultancy. I suspect they might perhaps be best characterized as an advocacy organization. Their claimed connection with the RSA seems to be that they were originally inspired by a talk there by a distinguished person. The section of "membership" is link spam. See also the article on Corporate Responsibility Group which I am thinking of sending to AfD. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• nod*. Concur; I'll have a dig around at a future point, and if I can't fix it I'll probably come back you to unmove and redelete it. Ta! Sladen (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)—

UMI Dissertations Abstract

Hi DGG!

Would you help me with a UMI Dissertations Abstract query, please?

Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ask, here or by email, but it may be a day or two until I can respond to it. DGG ( talk ) 15:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Center for Economic and Policy Research (PRODded, now AFD)

The name happens to denote the most respected think tank in the UK and a research institute at Stanford University. The first hit I saw at Google Scholar or Books noted the reader's being puzzled at a CERP working paper being written by a political economist from the only Marxist department in the UK, before he realized that it was a US CERP. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

My copyright violation on an article talk page

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Talk:Rainbow Family.
Message added -- Trevj (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reply

Hi DGG, thanks and respect for all the good work you do. I replied to your comment on Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Another_loophole_on_the_misuse_of_db-G6_theme. Absolutely not in any way intended as criticism, problem with the system not with good admins. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Rising above the mediocre

What you said here was very interesting. "I do not think a community editing project where anyone can edit will ever rise above mediocre quality. Our goal should be to not come below it--above is unreachable. The greater the degree of summarization, the more skilled the writing must be. Even among the scholarly societies, many more are capable of specialized writing than of general introductions."

I would agree personally with that. Summarising a comprehensive subject is difficult, as it involves both a comprehensive knowledge of the subject itself (rare), and good communication skills (less rare, but not frequent). But it surprised me you say that because you seem to be one of the main defenders of the Wikipedia 'ideology', i.e. the idea of 'epistemic egalitarianism', the idea that a 17 year old has as much to contribute as a professor etc. Do you see any conflict between the view you expressed above, and your belief or faith in Wikipedia? Interesting Hestiaea (talk) 08:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it by such monumental terms as "faith and belief"; my hope and expectation for Wikipedia is that it will be a good and useful general encyclopedia. Some aspects of it are already very good, and can be excellent: comprehensive scope, up-to-date coverage. Some will be very good, and are quite good already: accuracy, referencing and cross-linking. Some will I hope become good, though they have problems at present: freedom from advertising and bias. Some will never rise above mediocre: the quality of the writing, including their detailed style. Some of all this is characteristic of a large scale community project: comprehensiveness, timeliness, lack or bias, linking. Some are special features of the people gathered here and they way they work: objectivity , accuracy, referencing.

The intention was for WP to be at the level of the average college student. Many 17 year olds are at that level, some considerably younger in fields with no special academic pre-requisites. Certainly the high school and junior high school Wpedians I have known in Wp circles have been working at a mature level. I learned this freedom from agist bias from my parents, who treated their children as rational beings who would learn more if given the opportunity. Here, we give them that chance. Children should be treated as adults as soon as they're ready, when it does not risk their safety. This is a very safe place, compared to others on the web. And it does not affect our own safety, because when there are errors, there are thousands of people to fix them.

As I said elsewhere, there still remains the need for an encyclopedia of higher academic quality. Most high school students would not be able to participate significantly, but neither would most adults. And a great many of those with advanced subject degrees I have known in my career would not have the necessary skill at comprehensive comprehensible writing. Scholars too need to be edited, and complicated works do best with skilled organization. It can be more efficient to have questions settled by editorial ukase. But not always: as you know, I joined WP and Citizendium at the same time, resolved to go with the one that made more progress. DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! BTW I wasn't aware of your involvement with Citizendium.

I don't altogether agree with your comment about academic quality. I don't think articles in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy would be suitable for WP. What is needed is well-summarised and well-explained articles on difficult or general subjects that would be accessible to anyone of high school age (15-18) and above. The Wikipedia article on Being and the corresponding SEP article [4] are both unreadable but for different reasons. The WP article, as you will appreciate, is a rambling dog's breakfast of uncited original research (plus some glaring factual errors). The SEP article looks pretty accurate to me but just goes off into the clouds ("Anti-Meinongian First-Order View") once it gets going. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is better for a general audience but is incomplete. Hestiaea (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Expert attention requested

At User talk:Dr. Blofeld#archive.org I mentioned that I am in the process of beginning the work to upload some of the old, now public domain, articles from the Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics to WikiSource, at least partially because I think, in at least a lot of cases, the content of some of the articles in wikipedia we would have on older subjects about whom the scholarly opinion may not have changed much in the intervening time might well benefit from having such a good, reliable, academic source on their subjects very easily available. In fact, I was thinking of maybe proposing to Blofeld that one way to help get some content together on some of the major topics we don't have articles on yet is for, maybe, me to upload old articles to WikiSource, and then he, with his astonishing productivity, maybe check some of the more recent reference and other works on the subject (I think he has both the free Highbeam Research and Questia accounts given out earlier), and, between the older and newer sources, we could get together at least fairly solid "starter" articles on a lot of those topics. One thing that might be useful there, though, would be to know which if any of these older PD reference sources would be most useful in such an effort. I think you are probably the best person we might have to answer that question, if you see fit probably Dr. Blofeld's talk page. John Carter (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• There is no subject whatsoever, about which there may not have been very significant additional information in 70 years, or about which scholarly opinion will not have substantially changed in 70 years. I would very strongly oppose moving any content on major topics here unless (1). The specific portion moved was indicated in the article so we could tell the old material from later additions. and (2) A competent search had been made to see what revisions were warranted. (Unlike some other encyclopedia, there is no current edition to make for an easy check.) This is not going to be easy if done properly. It would make more work to do this than to write from scratch--it could more appropriately be a list of article that need writing. If Dr. B wants to take this on, I am sure he will do it well, but if I were doing it I would rewrite, not merely supplement.

I regard our earlier use of the old EB and Catholic E. ,to have been reckless. We have spent 10 years cleaning those articles up, and it's not yet finished. Yes it's better to have some information than no information, but that's only the case if "some" means incomplete, not if it means wrong or misleading. On the other hand, I must admit that our use of the old DNB has been fairly successful. It clearly separated facts from opinion, and, especially in the articles about the earlier historical figures, relies very usefully upon direct quotation of the sources. Even for this source, naïve use of it simply copies, and does not remove what nowadays we would consider fluff.

More generally, there are, as you say, a great many such works. There may possibly be some fields where matters are stationary enough, but I cannot immediately think of any. In art and music even basic attributions change. In descriptive biology, even frequently used scientific names change. There are similar works to the DNB for other countries, but I have never analyzed them. Having all these encyclopedias available is and will be a wonderful resource--but in general they require interpretation and knowledge of context. DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I actually don't myself disagree with you about searching for updates in general. I guess I should say that the few I thought might not have received a lot of large changes would be things like (because I deal with religion a lot) the thinking of Thomas Aquinas or Augustine of Hippo, which have been analyzed to the point of absurdity for centuries, and about which there haven't been much in the way of recent discoveries. And I might not have stressed hard enough that I although think that Blofeld, or myself, would also consult the databanks like Highbeam and Questia which will generally have some of the more recent reference sources, like the Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion to review the Hastings against. I think both he and I have both of them. Regarding the qualifications you cited, I think that if either he or I did anything like this, we could probably arrange the citations in the article to address your point 1, and the search of databanks for more recent material would probably address point 2. I know, for instance, the Hastings article on Ægean religion (I am truly beginning to hate that "*Sheehy, Eugene P., ed. (1986). Guide to Reference Books (Tenth ed.). Chicago and London: American Library Association. ISBN 0-8389-0390-8. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_title= and |month= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

" character BTW) says that their main goddess could be thought of as being Rhea, when more recent research would probably indicate that Leto would be the more likely candidate, and probably doesn't even make that jump to any sort of conclusion at all.

I myself am probably going to try to "fill out" the existing missing articles in the Eliade/Jones EoR more or less on the basis of a mining of the Hastings and itself, emphasizing the latter over the former. But, yeah, in general, I think you are probably right. I probably should have thought it through a bit more. John Carter (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Analogously, the material in the old DNB could certainly be used to supplement articles, by someone who could do it with some confidence that the part being used is uncontroversial. Additionally, substantial parts beyond the accepted fair use limits here could be quoted. (I think almost anything short of a full article would be legal fair use, & if I were making the rules, I would permit using anything legal, but the consensus wants to be more restrictive. Using out-of-copyright sources removes that problem.)

I've realized another reason why using the old encyclopedia article by themselves --even by an expert who is sure that the interpretation is still correct--is misleading. Doing this does not make clear to the reader that the earlier interpretations are still considered correct--only a current source can do this. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Good points, although I suppose if we were to eventually develop some of the articles on reference sources, and I'm thinking many of them meet our content guidelines, we might have articles on them which say that their content is still very highly regarded and accurate for some specific topics. I am in the process of getting together some sources for content on Aegean religion and some of the "Ages of the world" subjects, because those are the ones which have separate articles in both the Jones EoR and the old Hastings. If I do create them or develop them, it would almost certainly be based on at least both of those sources, and probably any other major current reference sources I can find on the databanks. John Carter (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, certainly, but only an expert (not necessarily a professional academic--many amateurs are equally skillful) in the subject will know enough to do it right, and I certainly do not mean to discourage you. In summarizing current sources, a lower degree of subject knowledge is needed, because the sources can be more consistently relied on. I regard old sources very highly, so highly that I own a *print* 1911 EB & 1907 Catholic encyclopedia, But that an encyclopedia is generally reliable doesn't say anything about a specific article. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia is very reliable within its limits.

BTW, you mentioned Sheehy (1986). I have it & most of the older editions also, & they show nicely the changes over time. What was reliable in 1986 may not be reliable in 2013, and the online Guide to Reference is the reliable source for current views of quality. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Good points. And thanks for the hint to the online Guide to Reference. I am actually right now only really using the Sheehy book because it is one I have available to me, and it does seem to have come out right around the time of what seems to have been a marked proliferation in the production of specialist encyclopedias and similar reference sources, the mid 1980s. The various databanks I have access to have a frankly huge number of reviews in various academic and professional publications about such works, and the material there is probably sufficient to indicate which sources published since then are out there, and possibly provide a better indicator of where they are most and least reliable. I actually have already downloaded a mess of them to my e-mail, and as my limited time allows, I hope to create articles on the more important of them. But I chose the admittedly outdated book because it can possibly be used to help establish notability of some of those older sources, and allow for us to have some ideas regarding what is still considered good in them. A few of the articles on Buddhism in the old Hastings ERE were said in reviews of the more recent Eliade EoR to have been the best articles ever written on their individual subjects, including those in the Eliade EoR, and my hope is that when and if I get the time to read and write them all the articles on those works include mention of similar highly regarded articles in those earlier works. Personally, I think that at this point maybe one of the more important things we might be able to do is make it easier for editors to know which articles we do and don't have, and where sources for them can be found, and reference books, even the old ones, are probably among the best things available to help do that. John Carter (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I'm the one who should apologize, because I've been meaning for several years to add everything from GtoR. I do not have it routinely available from home either, and the main library I work at these days, NYPL, unbelievably does not have it. But i can still go down to NYU or Princeton and use it--they have both the online and the printed multi-vol version, and ideally both should be added. I agree the older vols. are usable, and that was notable then is notable now. But if you use them, you'll also need to check about newer eds of the print, and especially about online availability, which is of course much greater at present than it was earlier . However, I'm not clear about "what articles we do and don't have"--surely finding that is easy enough--I think you mean, what sources we have not yet exploited, and I'd be glad to find a way for this. The best I can devise is to use a template for adding the references to a particular source, which will automatically make a category--which can then be given on the article on that source. I think i'll do a batch. I can figure out how get them usable for the various ref formats, but as I prefer plain footnotes, I'll do that; others can add options if they care to. Project for February. DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Help clean Cal Poly Pomona

Hi, DGG

I noticed that you are involved in cleaning Cal Poly. I think these pages need to be deleted or merged. I need your input.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronco_Pep_Band (delete) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cal_Poly_Pomona_presidents (merge with List of Cal Poly Pomona people) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cal_Poly_Universities_Rose_Float (delete) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronco_Student_Center (delete) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_California_Marine_Institute (delete) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Poly_Post (delete) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cal_Poly_Pomona_Broncos (delete) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cal_Poly_Pomona_Broncos_men%27s_basketball (delete) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cal_Poly_Pomona_University_Library (delete) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLA_Building (delete) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._K._Kellogg_Arabian_Horse_Center (delete) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cal_Poly_Universities_Rose_Float (delete) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Polytechnic_University,_Pomona_academics#Agriculture_.288.29 (delete/merge)

Thanks, --Fredthecleaner (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

the way this sort of situation should be handled is to start at the bottom, with the least notable . I've nominated the one of the Rose Float for deletion; the list of presidents should be merged to the main article--it's appropriate content there, and all the successive presidents are notable & should have articles. At the opposite end, the article for their athletic teams is a perfectly justifiable split, similar to what is done routinely for such universities. Whether articles on individual teams should be merged into depends on their significance. Since the basketball team won a NCAA championship in 2010 there's a case for it--I'd need to see how other such teams are handled. The various centers need looking at, but we'd ordinarily mention these in the main article, and redirect/merge, not delete. The CLA building might be notable. The student center building should be merged to the student association, but I'm not sure the combination is notable: there is little content. I cannot see why on earth you included the agriculture section of their academics article--it's already properly merged. The question is whether that entire article should be merged into the main article as a section. Articles on bands and libraries and newspapers are acceptable when they are indpedently significant; that is probably not the case here, but they should be merged/redirected, not deleted. According to :[WP:Deletion policy]], deletion is the last resort. Wanting to delete rather than merge seems quite inappropriate. (Sometimes there is a problem of not getting consensus to merge, and the practical solution can be an AfD, though that's not formally what it should be for.) DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Not that it affects the note, but that is sockpuppet I blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

so I noticed after I wrote it when I went to his talk p to warn him that the strange mix of including articles that should surely be deleted, and those that should not, indicated a possible negative conflict of interest. As I've said at I think it was an/i, during many of the discussions involving this college and NYU-Poly, despite the article proliferation and recriminations on both sides, some of the material is usable, and some is not. If I can get a day clear from immediate fire-fighting, I'm going to do all the necessary merges. DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated note: since getting the bit I've been working hard on my content creation,improving on what was noted as a weaknesses at RfA. I've 20+ new articles, which is more than the last 6 years combined. 1950s' American automobile culture is my latest and best so far. Of course I had a tremendous amount of help, but thought you might like to know I've not forgotten why we are here. I expect to aim for GA and FA with this article in time, my first for both. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya Application Server 5300 Ottawahitech (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

And mentioned very rightly. These are examples of the series of deletions trying to remove all coverage of the products of the Ayaya corporation, a $5 billion annual revenue telecom firm split from Lucent. If they were done being brought by experienced editors here, I would have though it hostility towards this company, a type of vandalism that has been rather frequently seen, and is now being engaged in mutually by sockpuppets from two universities on opposite coasts of the US. Rather, I think it an obviously good faith attempt to alter the content policies of Wikipedia, which of course anyone has the right to try. Bringing AfDs is an accepted method for trying to see what the degree of support is likely to be. (Personally, I would have brought fewer at a slower pace, but this is not so blatantly unreasonable as some deletion sprees.)

The apparent goal would seem to remove WP coverage of all major physical products and product lines by major companies, or , that failing, reduce not just products but lines of business to single lines on a list, leaving but one article for the entire company and everything it does. Alternately, the goal might be to remove all information ultimately deriving from a company, which amounts to almost the same thing. conceivably its rigid adherence to the misunderstood letter-of-the law about the GNG, as if it were a fundamental invariable policy like Not Censored, rather than its actual state as a very general guideline with many exceptions; and ignoring the purpose of notability guidelines, which is to rationally sort out what is worth an encyclopedia article.

I do not normally support individual product articles except for very notable products; most should be merged into combination articles on the product line- but merged in a way to preserve, not destroy, the information. The article about every commercial and noncommercial organization, or every creative person, or every political and religious concept, serves in some extent to promote it by providing accurate information about it. We have enough problem with the true advertising and promotionalism for all of these, promotionalism which magnifies importance, while providing a minimum of actual information. All relevant WP policy and guidelines are designed to permit and indeed encourage neutral description.

I look forward to WP not just to reversing all previous deletions and over-merges of these products, but the much harder & longer job of writing them for the hundreds of thousands of products in all fields of commerce and technology for which we need articles . Our model is Diderot and D'alemberts Encyclopedie, famous in the eighteenth century and still in ours for the detailed description and illustrations of technology of the period--and the long continued detailed coverage of technology in succeeding encyclopedias.

I am here hours a day trying to remove promotionalism from the encyclopedia, and instruct writers with possible COI how to do it properly. There's an enormous amount of it. Mistaken interpretations like this do not help--they use time and effort that would is critically needed for removing the real junk, and in writing good articles. I'm no inclusionist about spam--I've deleted about 5,000 spam articles about products and organizations. DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC

• @DGG, you are doing a great service to Wikipedia, thank you!

It is not easy to determine what this drive to eliminate what is mostly Nortel articles is motivated by. But, to me at least, it is becoming rather clear that it is not all in good faith. How else do you explain the fact that even though I have brought up, time and again, that Nortel is a defunct company, the same people who magically appear in all these deletion discussions keep voting Delete because of spam, do not seem to understand that a defunct company by definition is not in the promotionalism category? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

True, it does sound absurd, but promotionalism is a very broad concept--the company has successors, who manufacture similar products. And there is probably even a market for used ones. Hobbyists could still write an article on, say, the Apple I in a promotional manner, because they so much like it. The reason these articles are not spam is because they are informative not promotional--the true question, which is open to good-faith argument, is how much detail belongs in the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David A. Schauer

Good arguments. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Advice

Not sure if I should post this here or on my talk page (so I added it to both) - Thank you for the offer to help. I compiled the information from several sources which are listed in the references, I think the main info came from here: The faculty profile: http://www.design.upenn.edu/people/malkawi_ali-m The board profile: http://www.gord.qa/index.php?page=board-of-directors I added quotes over sections that would have been exact copy/paste – such as the mission/goals statements/descriptions, etc. (such as www.design.upenn.edu/facilities/resources-school).

Both the center and QSAS articles had previously been published (not by me) and on Wikipedia for a few years before I created the Ali Malkawi article. I updated the other pages with current information such as links to articles that were current since there were postings about lack of sources/link rot (since I found them while I was creating the Malkawi page). Would I be able to add additional links to sources for any of these articles in the future? I would like to understand how to post in a way that does not create a conflict/appears promotional.

Regarding the center page, it had been up for a while, published by another user. The merge had been discussed on the talk page. I think it should have it’s own page. From what I understand, it functions as a separate entity – with different goals, objectives, mission, members, projects, offices, events, than the school of architecture. I did find a lot of independent sources listed under “T.C. Chan Centre” that could be added. Just trying to understand why it would be difficult to defend--in the past I have read Wikipedia articles about other departments or centers within large universities that have their own pages. I think that this center has coverage and has work that is notable for Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is new to me—still learning. Thanks. Energy22 (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is the place to ask, because busy people are more likely to see it on their own talk p.

The two questions are separate: should an article be deleted, and will an article be deleted. WP is not known for consistency, is erratic about following precedent, and will sometimes make exceptions to most rules if people really want to. I have to give you realistic and safe advice, based upon my experience about what will probably happen. (I have my own views, but though I can tell you what they are, I would be misleading you if i told you to rely on them. I do not get to make the decisions; no one person does.) So, on the basis of my experience here, I think that in practice almost all articles on research institutes or centers within a single department have been deleted or at best merged; they usually get kept when they are particularly notable free standing centers within a university. (Ones you may see around otherwise are sometimes there because there is some special justification, but sometimes because there was an erratic or biased conclusion to an argument, or even that they've escaped notice)

The technical guideline is WP:N, and more particularly WP:ORG; the key question according to the guidelines is usually whether there is substantial enough coverage and whether it is independent & not based on press releases. The decision for keeping or deleting is usually based primarily of the nature and quality of the sources, with only subsidiary consideration of the actual merits of the subject. (I think it should be the other way around, but I know I am in the minority--and if I am in a situation where I am the one to judge, I judge according to the general consensus.) Apart from the sources, there is a general tendency to not make articles for subordinate structures within a larger administrative unit: It took quite a while to establish that such entities as medical or law schools in a university should have separate articles; we have also been able to justify most well known separate journalism and architecture schools; we have not done nearly so well with most colleges of education or business. (This undoubtedly reflects the biases of the average editor here, but such is the state of things.)

I work a lot on these subjects,and I for years have tried to persuade the community to include as full a coverage of higher education as possible. I personally think it best to confine my efforts to the college level, and only the most famous departments, trying to be sure that at least these ones are covered. For research centers such as TCChan, I will support only the strongest. I consider this one borderline. There's no point arguing it here; when I bring it to AfD, and I will do so if I do not get agreement to merge it. The community will discuss it there, and some one else will decide what is the consensus. On the other hand, I think I will be able to say that the QSAS program is independently notable because of its wide adoption, & has good sources to show it.

To give you some idea of the arguments you will have to meet, for the center I will argue that almost all the coverage is internal to the university, or based on student papers, which cover all university events indiscriminately, or is based upon Press releases; and that the importance is based upon sponsoring one meeting of a symposium, publishing one journal, and having engaged in one important international project which should get its own article--and that everything else is local. I urge you to try to find enough good sources to meet these objections, and if you do, the article will be kept.

I should also have mentioned the page PennPraxis, added by a different editor a long time ago "the clinical arm of the School of Design" is in my opinion the least defensible of all: The descriptive half of it should go in the main article, but it is already mentioned there in one sentence, which is probably the appropriate length--its an integral part of the program. The casino material might go in the articles on SugarHouse Casino and Foxwoods Casino Philadelphia, if it is even significant there. Those who have written the current versions of the articles didn't seem to think so. This one I shall certainly redirect to the school unless you can find more material , preferably up to date material, The procedure if you disagree would be to revert my move, and then it can be discussed. DGG ( talk ) 20:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You have mail!

Hello, DGG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Regarding a t-shirt nomination :) Jalexander--WMF 22:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Coursera

Hi DGG--I hope this finds you well, with none of your toes frozen off. I was wondering if you could have a look at Coursera, just to go over it and see what minor or major improvements you could make or suggest. As the late Whitney Houston put it so succinctly in "How Will I Know", "I'm asking you cause you know about these things." Also--do you think this business model stands a chance? It seems so unlikely to me, yet everywhere I look I see stuff like this, even at my own school. Thanks in advance, Drmies (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest converting the business model section into prose, & I'll look for additional references. As for success: the financial question is whether people will actually pay for this, but the examples of payTV etc show they will, if the quality is high enough. What costs most is the supplementation by group discussion & tutoring if they include that, and students will pay for that also, if they can thereby get credit at their college for less than the college would charge ordinarily, & if widely adopted, it is possible that this may be enough to pay for a free service as well. The educational question is whether this will degenerate into lecture-only, and thus dilute the quality of college instruction. But what is the actual quality of much conventional college instruction? DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

List of big-firm partners at Tulane Law School

Looking at some page histories, I see that back in 2009 you spearheaded a discussion of whether the Tulane University Law School article should keep its long list of lawyers who were partners at Vault 100 law firms. You argued (correctly, in my opinion) that such a list was not the sort we maintain on Wikipedia. It looks like this discussion went from Talk:Tulane University Law School#Partners at Vault's Top-100-Most-Prestigious Law Firms to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities/Archive 6#Notable alumni, where it appears to me the consensus was that the list was not appropriate: one editor strongly argued to keep the list but the others more or less all agreed with you. Nevertheless, it seems that since then, each time someone has tried to delete this section they have been reverted with an edit summary stating that consensus had agreed to keep the list.[5][6]. Was such a consensus actually established somewhere? Would such a list be allowed at another law school's article? Thanks very much for your input. (I'll watch for your answer here.) --Best regards, Arxiloxos (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I removed this obvious spam, though if it is restored I cannot take the actual admin action that may be thought necessary, because I both edited and commented; some other admin will have to do that. DGG ( talk ) 20:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with the deletion, and I added a link to the old Wikiproject discussion for anyone who may be interested. Best, --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

NYC panel

Hi there, DGG. I sent you an email about details for the upcoming panel discussion last week, and wanted to try you here since I hadn't heard back. I hope you can still make it, and if you have any other questions, just let me know. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 03:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Campus Ambassador

Just saying hi... I see you are the Brooklyn College campus ambassador, no? Am working on a Wikipedia project for Amy Hughes Theatre History Class.

--Eparness (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey DGG. I've just noticed that you've joined the Brooklyn College Theater History course as Campus Ambassador. Just wanted to say hello myself (I'm OA-ing the course), and add that I'm glad it's you - we've never crossed paths much that I can recollect, but I've seen you around at ANI and so forth, and you've always struck me as a pretty stand-up and level-headed guy. I look forward to working alongside on this project. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 22:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

help find sources project

Hello DGG, last time I came here was for your comments on the description on the template primarysources. This time I seek for your comments on my drafted IEG grant proposal here m:Grants:IEG/find_sources_2.0. The basic idea is to enhance source-finding and thus citing practices for contributors old and new by providing lists of online and offline resources and some basic general description on the nature of the sources in these resources (per general research/librarian perspective and per WP policies WP:PSTS WP:V WP:RS.

Since you are the expert who are familiar with both perspectives, I hope that you will can provide comments to improve the grant proposal. Thanks. --_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 00:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll get to this tonight. Thanks. DGG ( talk ) 15:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Local interest topics

Hi DGG, I noticed on some AfD's that you believe local interest topics are not suitable for inlcusion in Wikipedia, and I'm wondering why. When you find the time, I'd love to hear your reasoning. I think they are, on the same account that - for example - articles on insect subspecies should be included. They may be of interest to just a small group of people, but they are of interest. I quite often fidn your reasonings comelling though, so I look forward to hearing how I am wrong on this one! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

this will take till tomorrow, for I want to give a full explanation; it's been a while since I last wrote it out, & I want it to represent my current view. But as a starting point, using your example, I think you probably meant insect species, not sub-species. I would not support articles on most insect sub-species--we will have enough work to do with the actual 900,000 known full species. (and the estimated 10 times that number that have yet to be identified). The subspecies should be handled the way anything but the most highly specialist books handle them: as part of the article for the species. There will of course be exceptions, when the particular subspecies has been much studied. DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem, take your time - good is more important than fast. The reason why I think we should include it, by the way, is point one of the five pillars: "It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" (emphasis mine). Now I realise that 'it incorporates elements of' doesn't mean 'it should include everything in', though if it is verifiable I don't yet see any objection to including it, and including it does seem to further our mission. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

from my holiday address (greetings from Koh Pha Ngan. You may be jealous now) a polite ping. 180.183.220.31 (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean to rush you, but have the feeling you may have missed this. So a quick second ping. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Medical College of Georgia Wikipedia page

Hello DGG!

Just saw you redirected the Medical College of Georgia page to the Georgia Regents University page, History section. I'd like to request that you undo this action, with the caveat that I know this can be confusing.

GRU used to be MCG - the Medical College of Georgia was a standalone university back in the day. However, the university grew to become Georgia Health Sciences University, and the Medical College of Georgia became ONE of the university's colleges.

On the Georgia Regents University web site (http://gru.edu/colleges/medicine/index.php), the Medical College of Georgia is listed as one of the nine colleges in the university. I believe the page you've redirected is the page for the college, so it's a sub-set page - not a historical university page.

I'd love to talk about it with you - please get in touch with me? Thank you!

Email: crule@gru.edu, or of course on my talk page, or here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GRUcrule (talk • contribs) 14:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You are correct that it is customary from medical schools at a university to have a separate page; therefore, I intend to rewrite the page, and I think I said so on one of the talk pages, probably the one for the university as a whole . The reason I deleted the prior page is because it was almost entirely a copyvio from the university site;it had previously been deleted as a copyvio also, in several versions. I'll give a further explanation on your talk page tonight; there are acceptable ways to go forward, but also unacceptable ways. DGG ( talk ) 15:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good - I'm our Social Media Coordinator, but this is a recent position, so I haven't been involved in editing any Wikipedia pages prior to late January. I look forward to learning from your work. Thanks for the speedy reply! GRUcrule ( talk ) —Preceding undated comment added 16:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

IOP_Publishing

Ever since I accidentally got involved in an article being worked on by a WWBTOO employee (I did not realize the editor worked for him) I've been trying to avoid the Request Edit queue, but since nobody else is manning it, I'm going through it.

I came across this one that I thought might be up your alley on getting a second opinion on my merge suggestions: Talk:IOP_Publishing#Books_Publishing_section

I don't know enough about academic periodicals to know the best course of action. CorporateM (Talk) 17:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I responded. DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Muchos grassius. I would prefer not to handle the Request Edit queue, but since nobody else is, I cleared up a good 15 requests that were mostly fairly obvious.

BTW - if you care to, I haven't gotten any feedback yet on Talk:YouSendIt#Draft_for_consideration. I'm pretty happy that they included content from an analyst report, because this is something volunteers will never have access to otherwise, but I feel we could use feedback on the BLP issues and any anti-promo tips. CorporateM (Talk) 21:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Ryan said he would take a look after his Wikibreak, so I'll wait for him! CorporateM (Talk) 16:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Nova Publishers

Hi, if you have a moment could you please have a look at this edit of mine and the discussion on the article's talk page. I'd like to hear your opinion especially about this SENSE reference. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 09:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Milking the bull

In working upon this topic, I observed that you had a particular interest in list of proverbial phrases. When I get a moment, I plan to make some bold edits there as it seems to have gone quiet. Just letting you know in advance... Warden (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)~~

we perhaps should talk first. The main thing I think it needs is citations. I could put in a few dozen/hundred quickly. then of course it needs articles on all or most of them--that part I do not want to do. DGG ( talk ) 15:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

#smwwiki panel

		The Real Life Barnstar
		Thanks again for appearing on the discussion panel at Social Media Week NYC; it was a great conversation and I'm glad you were part of it! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

Thanks for your Guide lines for Islamic Azad University Khorasgan Branch. I will try again. Please check it soon Mehrnazar (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

CRL

It has been suggested you might be interested in the discussion at User_talk:Phoebe#CRL. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for unblanking that article about Paul

It was about Paul the Afc BLP (I forgot his last name), not the other Paul, Fisher of Men. I didn't realize that declining an Afc, for not complying with BLP standards, would result in automatic blanking, not until after the fact. There was nothing libelous or copyvio-ish there, merely insufficient, as in "needs more work". I didn't know what to do, if I could reverse it without causing yet more problems. I appreciate that you caught that and unblanked.

I have a few other items, while I am here. I can help you with certain aspects of your work here, not as sycophant-as-a-service, merely because I have a similar skill set as yours, in one tiny area of your field of expertise. On second thought, I think I'll just leave this on my own talk page, for your perusal, should you have time and inclination, rather than littering here. Again, thank you for your help yesterday. --FeralOink (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Douglas W. Owsley bibliography

Hi, could you have a look at this article? I'm not really sure what to think of it. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on it. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Library theft

Hello DGG: Library theft is a new article that you may find of interest to check out, improve, etc. Cheers, Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

== Might have found some new refs for [[Inter

AfC source tagging

Hi DGG per our last chat I've stated on implementing some (non game based) ideas for improving communication at AfC. I hope that these will be usefull in more rapidly establishing better reviewer norms at AfC. To wit I've developed two new inline warning tags templates tags and will add a few more tomorrow. The point being that these would supplement the existing rejection tags by providing more focused issue detection and better troubleshooting links.

I think the most common issues are

1. sources that are not independent - which we should tag with Template:!IN
2. sources that are user generated (blogs, wikis) - which we should tag with Template:!Blog
3. sources that come from Wikipedia - which we should tag with Template:!Wiki

So far I've tagged used these here BO | Talk 17:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Journal statistics

Hi, this discussion has stalled a bit and could use your input. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

You made a very appropriate edit on 23:49, 5 November 2011‎ on the Mankind Project article--you removed a lenthy addition that was, as you noted, quite promotional in nature. I've been a member of MKP for 12+ years and credit the organization with helping me transform my life in many positive ways. However, puffery has no place for an organization that emphasizes Integrity and Authenticity. Cheers! Mark P.S. If you don't imbibe in alcoholic beverages, a fine tea or exotic coffee will be offered. :0) Mark D Worthen PsyD 09:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Precious

keep articles
Thank you for your efforts to keep articles, such as this piece of culture, for your love of libraries, for sharing resources, and for your thoughts on elucidating, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (25 April 2009, 25 June 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Selective Law Databases

Hello, what are some selective databases for law that would be the equivalent of MEDLINE? To avoid article deletion, inclusion in which law databases would signify that a journal is notable? 206.174.67.237 (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I will inquire. But since any legal journal is likely to be used for citation in a judgment, including a judgement of a supreme court, and since WP considers essentially every modern supreme court case notable , a case could be made for inclusion of articles on all of them. Most of the important law journals in the US are published by law schools as projects run by the students--obtaining a place on its editorial board is considered the highest honor the school can give, and all of these will be notable. But many schools now publish a variety of additional journals, University of X Law School Journal of International Law, ... of Constitutional, ,,, etc. , which have, I think a much lesser reputation--we have deleted a number of these at AfD. There are then the journals of the StateBar Associations, which could be merged with an article on each of the Bar Associations. Otherwise, I need to consider and ask advice. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Quick question: Outlines

In my work on public relations I came across this article Outline of public relations, which seems like a massively extended See also section of the PR article. Should I AfD it as a fork? CorporateM (Talk) 15:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It's intended as such, essentially as a table of contents, like Outline of physical science, and many others: see WikiProject Outlines and Portal:Contents/Outlines. They are more systematically arranged than th text format of a general article, which requires reading, not scanning, to find specific topics. They are more article oriented than Portals -- see Portal:Philosophy, but more general than Indexes & Lists such as Index of standards articles or Glossaries, such as Glossary of US mortgage terminology . There's also a combination page type: Portal:Contents/History and events-- click "see in all page types".

It's a good question whether we need all of these systems of organization. We've tried others: a systematic organization based on List of Dewey Decimal classes or Library of Congress Classification or Wikipedia:Outline of Roget's Thesaurus, and yet others have been proposed. I think the overlap more than they ought to, but we'll never et agreement on which to concentrate on. Personally, I very much like the Outline of... structure, and would support it over the others. I believe that's the current tendency, also. Ideally everything would be indexed according to the two library systems also, because they're familiar--not that they're any good--especially LC, which was designed to match the structure of a US university curriculum in the first decade of he 20th century. There is no viable one dimensional way to organize knowledge--the alternative is some sort of Faceted classification, whose construction and use can get really complicated. There's even a totally different approach--to have no classification or indexing of any sort, but rely on free text implemented as we implement the see alsos, and the hyperlinks, as anything anyone thinks related, with no systematic organization. Or the extreme of having everything be a free text search.

Perhaps however you are asking whether every item on that particular outline you mentioned belongs--that's for discussion on it's talk page, or whether other things should be added, in which case boldly add them. Or whether the whole outline is biased in some way, in which case, discuss it. Only if it is irretrievably biased or confusing should it be deleted.

Categories are a necessary complement--they are self-populating, but eliminate the possibility of saying anything about the individual items. I use them very heavily for what I do, which is, upon finding a problem article, finding others that are likely to have a similar problem. They should also do very well for finding term paper topics. They will be more effective as subject guides when we implement category intersection in a simply and obvious manner. (And there's the related Series Boxes, those colored boxes at the bottom. I dislike them--they're visually awful, and are used frequently to express or dispute a POV. But they do serve nicely to indicate missing articles.

Quick question, long answer. See chapter 17 of Wikipedia the missing manual for a longer one, oriented towards categories. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC) .

Wikipedia Ambassador Barnstar

		Wikipedia Ambassador Barnstar
		For your extensive efforts both as an Ambassador and in other capacities on Wikipedia, I award you this barnstar. You and I do not always agree on specific matters, but your qualities of humility and devotion are admirable and I am thankful for your contributions. Neelix (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Cultural intelligence

Hi DGG--I ran into this, which has great potential (according to JSTOR), but it's hardly my field: I can't write such articles on such topics. Perhaps you can have a go? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Kansas-Armenia National Guard Partnership

In reference to your issues with the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_-_Armenia_National_Guard_Partnership I am the main contributor to the 22 National Guard State Partnership pages, but I am not the one deciding what goes up on each page. I was tasked by EUCOM with coordinating the efforts of each SPP director (there is one for each State) and each BAO (there is one in each overseas embassy) and taking what they give me. Obviously, they do not want to duplicate there own work and rewrite what they already wrote on their State National Guard website so they are copy/pasting select content and asking me to upload. This is what EUCOM wanted to do in order to avoid requiring each SPP director and each BAO to learn the enormous Wikipedia guidelines and to prevent a drastic variation in style and quality.

Tell you what you suggest. The content is not plagiarized. Would a comment on the State National Guard websites indicating Wikipedia is authorized to use the content be the fix? Incidentally, we are nearing completion of our own SPP page here http://www.eucom.mil/key-activities/partnership-programs/state-partnership-program and if you click on any of the 22 links halfway down, you will see it takes you to a pdf (currently in draft form) that shows the exact same content that is appearing on the Wikipedia pages. These pages are going to be part of a printed posture statement. Again, this is to avoid having to create yet another version of the same material.

As for the pictures not being relevant to the partnership, I'm at a loss for words. These were very carefully selected from a large pool of pictures and they each show something meaningful about the program. The soldiers lined up on the airfield getting off a plane is an example of a monumental form of cooperation among two countries that just a few years ago were bitter enemies. The fact that they appear together at all in a picture like this should speak volumes. If you don't get that then I suppose nothing I say will matter.

I am open to your suggestions. Briansmith451 (talk) 11:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

There are a few principles involved.

1. Copyright. WP requires that all material be either in the public domain or licensed under a free license, by which we mean a CC-BY-SA license, which irrevocably gives everyone in the world the right to copy, reuse, and modify the material. Permission for WP to use it is not sufficient--WP is a free encyclopedia, which intends its content to be used freely for any purpose, even commercial, as long as attribution is given and the material remains freely licensed. Any use of material not under such a license is limited to brief quotations. We do not permit any compromise with this.
   1. We additionally do not permit Close paraphrase of unfree material; not just the words must be changed, but the arrangement into sentences and the sequence of ideas.
   2. As I mentioned, material published by the uS Government is in the public domain, and so is material published by a certain few individual US states, such as California. (This does not apply to photographs or other material they reprint from elsewhere, which may already be under copyright). Material from most states requires a license--see WP:COPYRIGHT.I note that almost all material from other country's governments (and the UN) is not in the public domain--the US is almost unique in this generous provision for free use.
2. Plagiarism, which applies to all material, free or unfree, copied or paraphrased. Anything taken from an outside source must be attributed to the source explicitly. This goes beyond copyright--it's a basic convention of responsible writing.
3. conflict of Interest You are apparently editing on behalf of a group of outside organizations, as part of your job. This creates a conflict of interest. For our rules on this, see WP:COI. We do not absolutely prohibit it, but we do examine such edits very closely for objectivity. As a general rule, a suitable page will be best written by someone without COI; it's not impossible to do it properly with a conflict of interest or as a paid press agent, but it's relatively more difficult: you are automatically thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know.
4. Ownership. Nobody owns a WP page, and anything you write is subject to editing by anyone--as an official editor you are no more entitled to determine the content than anyone else.
5. Notability A Wikipedia article needs to show notability with references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. All or almost all the sources in the articles are from the relevant government units, and do not show importance. There should however be newspaper articles available for all of these, but they must b independent, not essentially copies of press releases. Additionally, such sources can show undisputed facts, but they can not be used for conclusions, such as the success of the programs, which must be shown by outside sources.
6. Promotionalism Include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the subject, or to prospective supporters, or intended to produce a favorable public impression of the program --that sort of content is considered promotional. WP is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for promotion of even the most worthwhile things.
7. Illustrations. Actually, I noticed that photograph to which you might be referring, in the California-Ukraine article . I noticed it as a very good photograph, though there is nothing to indicate the field as being in the Ukraine But there is no need for the duplicative photographs of soldiers practicing treating casualties in the Illinois-Poland article--onei s sufficient; and I do not think purely ceremonial photographs such as [[7]] or [[8]] or [[9]] are appropriate--dignitaries meeting each other are PR, as are group photos of the participants. They may make good PR, and good content for the organizational websites, but they add nothing that cannot be said in words as far as the encyclopedic purpose is concerned. Yes, it's important to show the soldiers from the two countries working together I agree with you on that--it adds a demonstrative element beyond what words can do, but perhaps once per article is sufficient, and also those few that show actual military joint activities, rather than just training. Excessive use of what would be a good thing if used in small quantities is a sign of promotionalism--saying the same point over and over again. But, as I mentioned, since nobody owns an article, neither you nor I need decide this.

There are several courses I could take, as an experienced editor: I could nominate these articles at AfD for deletion as promotional and lacking 3rd party sources ; I could list them for a requested merge into the main article; I could list the problem on a suitable noticeboard and ask for opinions; I could persuade you to fix them; I could fix them myself. I do not want to delete content if there is any alternative; a merge would greatly decrease the usefulness as indicating the foreign relations of each of the countries involved; I will list them on the COI board (WP:COIN) if we cannot reach agreement, but perhaps that will not be necessary.

But there is one thing I must do as an administrator. I must remove copyright violations from the articles, by either rewriting or blanking the sections, or listing at the copyright problems notice board. If you do not immediately remove the ones from state pages which are not public domain, I will do one or the other, or remove what I can quickly find, and then list them all--action there usually takes a few weeks. DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

It is good to know that my efforts have been noticed... particularly by a user who, when I see his user names on edits and efforts, I have come to simply assume that something necessary was being done properly. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Library resources box

DGG, I and I expect others would appreciate your continued attention at the talk around user:JohnMarkOckerbloom's Template:Library resources box. There is a deletion discussion about this at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_30#Template:Library_resources_box. There was an article about this template in The Signpost in March, and some external press in other places.

This seems like a big issue which could set a precedent for how the Wikipedia community interacts with libraries. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

category intersects

Since you've mentioned wikidata many time, I thought you'd be interested in this: Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection#A_working_category_intersection_today. We could use it as a band-aid while waiting for wikidata to spin up. Also w.r.t your votes - I think that whether we use the proposal i made above, or wikidata, simplifying the categories *beforehand* will actually make things easier. None of the categories i've proposed deleting could not be recreated through an intersect - but for now they serve to ghettoize and are against the guidance for ethnic cats.

Anyway, regardless of what you decide on the CFD votes, I'd really appreciate your input and help on the cat intersect proposal. cheers --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I have almost always supported ethnic subcategories. People look for articles in these fields, often to find subjects for school papers. I in general agree with maintaining the categories in the meanwhile, but I'm not sure its worth arguing about them for the present, considering the degree of opposition. As I said there is that intersection will remove the entire need for the discussions.What we need most to keep are the categories from which the intersections will be constructed. (Defining and organizing the root data is a harder problem--I find some of the current Wikidata proposals a little too casual. Adding data fields as one thinks of them is not as good as a systematic ontology.) DGG ( talk ) 15:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Following up on your Predatory Journals discussion

I wonder if there's a definite list of ones to watch out for, as there seem to be a few creeping up at AfC. Instead of doing a thorough search, it would be practical to have a reliable list so we can notify the submitter, don't you think? Regards, (please TB me) FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I may have already said this, but I do not want to compose a list. Who are we to judge?

In fact, I do not like to use the term "predatory" at all, , just like I want to avoid "controversy" sections in articles. To the extent I can tell, some journals commonly considered as such may be fraudulent or hopeless, but I know that some are sincere efforts at alternative publishing. not all of the sincere efforts will prove to be useful, of course, but that's not a reason to condemn them. Publishing is a profession for optimists. I do not want to rely on Beall's list. I greatly respect him and the work he is doing, but there are objections about a few of the entries on Beall's list from reliable npov people in various listserv discussions, and i rather agree with some of the objections--I think he should possibly be removing from the list the very few that develop into respectability.

As for WP, the basic rule is simple, if they get into any of the ordinary indexes, they might be notable & there is no way to find out without a discussion. I know AfC is supposed to accept only articles which are good enough that not only will they pass AfD, but that no good faith AfD is likely; however, I think this is unrealistic in areas of unsettled notability, & this is one of them. If they're in a index more selective than DOAJ etc, and ifthey've published more than a handful of articles, I'd accept them, but I would first warn the editor that it will be challenged and that if they do not want what may be a very unsatisfactory discussion from their POV, to withdraw the submission until they have a better case. If you let me know what they are, I'll comment (or accept or decline, depending), but I think we have to go one by one. (If an article is about a publisher, I think it is just common sense that we want it to have at least one notable journal.) DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, you've answered my question. My main dilemma was if we should simply go for GNG or should journals be held against stricter rules for those reasons. But you've clarified the issue pretty well. I agree in principle, although a list could be useful for bogus, unscientific claims, not for AfC's purposes. Thanks again! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

As for bogus claims, the problem is not that these journals are used for publishing important but weird work, but that the work they publish --if they actually publish anything -- is almost always thoroly mediocre, because people knowing enough to do good work know enough to publish in better journals. People wanting to spread crank ideas try to publish them conspicuously, and most of the really fraudulent work that makes headlines as such has been published in journals that should know better. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

category intersection

You mentioned this in a few CFDs. Mind swinging by and giving your thoughts here, on a possible band-aid while awaiting wiki-data? Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection#A_working_category_intersection_today? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Quick question

I noticed you (and other admins) often tag pages for speedy deletion, even though you can delete them yourselves. Is this out of personal preference for wanting review by another admin or is there some guideline or unspoken rule that calls for review by at least two different people? Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Most of us think it better that two people see the article. I am capable of mistakes, and I know I occasionally make them, because people are not at all reluctant to tell me--sometimes I will have missed something, or not understood, or just gone too quickly. Even for the utterly obvious, there's the possibility of carelessness or sleepiness, or just frustration at having been seeing so many totally unsatisfactory articles. I doubt anything requiring human judgment can be done at less than 1% error. I've deleted over 12,000 articles over the 7 years I've been doing this. and that would have been 120 wrong deletions, and potentially 120 good editors lost to WP. But with someone else checking, that makes it only 1 or 2 in the whole time.

In fact, I've argued that this should be absolutely required, but there are cases where one must act immediately, and it's been difficult to specify exactly the exceptions. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh ok, thanks. I agree with you. I was just curious. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I appreciate that there are times when you must act immediately, such as WP:ATTACK and WP:OUTING and possibly other situations. Do the admins have a tool that makes it easy for admins to "delete (or WP:REVDELETE) now, and list the page for review by another administrator ASAP" and if they do, to most admins who make "unilateral deletions" use this tool? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There is no rule that admins can't delete anything on sight, but tagging and leaving for a second admin to delete is a good, unwritten practice that most seem to observe. Most of us will of course delete blatant COPYVIO, attack, and vandal pages immediately and some other cases of obvious nonsense. However, admins don't actually make many mistakes with their deletions, so 'delete and review later' by another admin would be redundant. I've deleted around 3,000 pages and only restored 20, and those were userfications. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I define 1% as "many" if one thinks of the cumulative effect over the years. If everyone who had a reasonable case stayed and complained, yes it would work, but most don't. There's also the definition of "error"-- does it mean an article that would pass AfD, or an article that with enough work might possibly pass AfD, an article to which the speedy criteria did not apply, but would end up deleted anyway The 1% is for the first two classes; for the third, it's more like 5%. In any case the error rate will depend on the type of speedys. I tend to look at the ones that have been passed over for a few hours. I only really know about my own errors, and of course my rate may be unusually high because I may be unusually incompetent. Some years ago I did intend to audit speedies--the reactions I received from admins involved in the ones I challenged persuaded me it was not the route to effectiveness here, and tolerating injustice in this was the way to be more useful overall. (There was 1, & only 1, admin who did change their practice in response to my comments.) I think I will decide the same about the G13 AfCs. DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

List of principal conductors by orchestra

Hi. Would you like to comment here? Thanks. --Kleinzach 01:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

J.O. Patterson, Sr., Nazis, syphilis, etc ...

Thanks for your very interesting message. I have read it all with interest, and replied to the part that is of most immediate relevance. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Confused. Perhaps I did something wrong.

Hi David. Thanks for all your many years of generous service volunteering here at Wikipedia. As you are somebody whose opinion I greatly respect, I wanted to ask about some comments that have confused me. This comment of yours seems to sort of conflict with this comment. As the author of the RfC in question, I think I may not have provided enough background or maybe not described the situation properly. Perhaps I didn't make a clear enough connection between the template and the service. Could you possibly let me know if I could improve the situation? Thanks very much. 64.40.54.118 (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the conflict. I think it's a wonderful service, and should be implemented very widely. It doesn't quite do everything, and considering I equally use two different public libraries and two university libraries, a link to a single library will not be of as much use to me as most people. Do I misunderstand, or is it that I did not explain myself clearly in the 2nd comment? DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I was misinterpreting your comments. One seemed enthusiatstic while the other seemed subdued, but I was probably reading that in to it. I was more concerned that I may not have presented the RfC details well enough for the community to fully understand it (i.e. what the service is and its benefits). I guess I was looking more for suggested improvements to the RfC. Thanks for the help. 64.40.54.118 (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You are right, I was not clear enough, so I added some unmistakable emphasis. I think there are lots of possible improvements, but the most important thing is to get the basic interface adopted. I'll have some suggestions. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you I'll look through the RfC tomorrow and see if I can rewrite it to be a bit more informative. Thanks kindly. 64.40.54.118 (talk) 06:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

What's in a name ?

An editor is interested in the correct title and information pertaining to the article entitled "CSA (database company)". Of course, I am also interested in accuracy. The introduction use to say that the company name is "CSA Illumina" [10] under the ProQuest banner.

However, someone tagged the article, and removed the "Illumina" from "CSA Illumina" in the intro [11]. The editor did leave a query on the talk page. Today I have responded and assembled some links. Although the other editor has not responded (not a lot of time has passed), it seems to me that "CSA Illumina" is not incorrect [12], but it may also be called CSA Illustra [13].

In any case, now that I have wet your whistle with the above external links, maybe you could review the talk page discussion, and links, and maybe you can come up with something (I hope). Thanks in advance. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll check the sources later today. I have some familiarity with the company DGG ( talk ) 15:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I just added some refs to the Science Citation Index article. It looks some interesting reading, if you have the time and interest. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Your ANI comment

"the problem will settle itself": that's the kind of thing my father used to say. I don't know how often he was right about that, but given that today is the third anniversary of his death I find those words extra striking. So often your comments are like oil on turbulent water, DGG: keep it up, in good health. Drmies (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Library count

I was wondering how one finds out how many libraries stock a particular author or book. I notice that you reference that in a couple of AfD nominations. Thanks, Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

the way is with [www.worldcat.org WordCat]. Search for the book, isbn is simplest if you know it . Click on the book entry and look down. Best way to find all books by an author is to go midway down to the "Find more information about" selection box:. " Caution: Coverage is almost entirely US & Canadian public and academic libraries, some major university libraries elsewhere, with most academic and some public libraries in the UK, & some public libraries in Australia and New Zealand. There is no single convenient technique for elsewhere, best gateway is, VZBl, then see Special:Booksources. Caution2: Some types of material, like popular sex manuals, esoterica, and devotional literature are not well represented in library catalogs. DGG ( talk ) 15:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For your great work on Jack Ernest Vincent!. :) – →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 05:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

boundary 2 again...

Dear David, boundary 2 is again under attack by POV pushers who claim that this is an "in-house" journal without peer review. There is a sopurce for the latter (Ulrich's), but it's reliability is doubted because it is behind a paywall. Perhaps you can join the discussion on the talk page. I must add that I find it exceedingly difficult to keep assuming good faith here... Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

There are reasons from recent events at WP for being extremely careful about negative approaches to anything related to contemporary American writers. But Ulrich's is not really an independent source for this--see my comment on the talk p. DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

So how do you suggest we describe the journal? As "peer-reviewed" or "internally reviewed" (as suggested on the talk page by the SPAs) or otherwise? To me, "peer review" can be either external or internal or both. By the way, PLOS ONE is by now using peer review more or less in the same way as other journals do, as far as I can see (I'm an "academic editor" for them). --Randykitty (talk) 10:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

List

FYI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

For your extensive digging at D. C. Reddy. I did checked for sources and all I could find was this. You deserve this Solomon7968 18:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Current projects 7-3

I was reading through your current projects listed on your Userpage, and I was curious about 7-3; how would you first define what an "established editor" is? Autoconfirmed? 50 edits? Consensus? Anyhow, I liked 7-1 and 7-2 (and 7-3, just curious about the details). Please let me know when you put this in front of the community at large or if you'd like any help! Happy editing! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I really should revise these. The problems at WP change over time, and so do my interests. I am a little less concerned about articles directly, and more about how we deal with editors, I no longer object to using A7 for organizations, and I'm less concerned about the misuse of speedy in general. Since I wrote that 5 years ago, there has been a greater degree of consistency in speedy deletions generally, and in fact with deletion process generally. But more important, as WP becomes important, we are under increasing attack from people and companies who wish to use us for promotion, to the extent that very strong measure are indicated. Many of the A7 company & organization deletions also qualify as G11, and often as G12, copyvio. Their authors have no interest in contributing to an encyclopedia, but want publicity for their enterprises, and a greater percentage of them are paid editors. I have come to think at AfD that for borderline notability, we should also consider the promotional nature of the article--the combination of borderline notability and considerable promotion is reason to delete--but since that's a matter of judgement, it's a question for AfD, not speedy.

I am still willing to restore articles if anyone intends to work on them, and I'm always surprised at the few admins who aren't, I'd now say, not "established editor" but "editor in good faith", & when there's actually a chance of improving the article. In practice it's usually clear enough--and a good faith editorcan even include the rare paid editor who wants to learn and conform to our standards. The problem is a more practical one, of people finding out about the deleted articles. But this is related to what I see as the main current problem:

in the advice we give new editors. too many people rely on the templates, either in New Page patrol or AfC. In any case where there's a reasonable effort , it is really necessary to explain specifically either what is needed, or why it's likely to be hopeless--and by specifically I mean showing that one has actually read and taken into account the particular article. I don't always do this myself--there are simply too many articles to deal with them all carefully--but I try to do it if there's a likely prospect of improvement, in either the article or the editor. But most patrollers and reviewers patrol or review using insufficient care or the wrong criteria.

I'm currently not that much specifically trying to save individual articles, or even to teach individual new editors--I'm trying to use my experience to help the people who work with new editors do it properly. At this point it's not a question of changing our rules, but the way we apply them, and changing the practices and expectations of the people who apply them. I tend to do this as Idid 5 years ago with speedies--I can't check every article submission, but when I see inadequate advice, I can follow up with that particular person. ` DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Review journal

Hi, there is a discussion here about the definition of what constitutes a "review journal", which is hampered by a lack of good sources. Would you know of any? In any case, please participate in the discussion. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

commented there. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Library cat

Hello DGG: I accepted Library cat from AfC, and per your background in library science (et al.), please feel free to check it out, improve it, etc. if you have the time or interest. Best regards, Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for input in drafting potential guidelines

Hi. There are, at present, no particular clear guidelines for religious material here, or, for that matter, guidelines for how to deal with ideas in general, particularly those ideas which might be accepted as true by individuals of a given religious, political, or scientific stance. There have been attempts in the past to draft such guidelines, but they have quickly been derailed. I am dropping this note on the talk pages of a number of editors who I believe have some interest in these topics, or have shown some ability and interest in helping to develop broad topic areas, such as yourself, and asking them to review the material at User:John Carter/Guidelines discussion and perhaps take part in an effort to decide what should be covered in such guidelines, should they be determined useful, and what phrasing should be used. I also raise a few questions about broader possible changes in some things here, which you might have some more clear interest in. I would be honored to have your input. John Carter (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative

Could you clean up the promo language and emphasis on activities not really noted by independent sources? I have a feeling your tax dollars were at work in the creation of that article. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Duckduckgo

DGG, I noticed some article creations by User:Duckduckgo (who probably needs a namechange anyway, as this is the name of a company), and at his talk page, I noticed your comment "I know this has been discussed in the past, and I know that what you are doing has been discouraged, so it disappoints me that you are still doing it." If this is a new user, thne your comment is rather WP:BITEy, as that user is probably not aware of this being discouraged. If he is not a new user (which seems not unlikely), then it seems probable that he is one of those users that used to create DNB articles but are now blocked. The lack of edit summaries or "own" writing in these DNB articles makes it of course harder to detect the possible sockmaster. The teahouse invitations he sends to new users may be a clue though. The "clever" name as well.

Do you have any further evidence or indications that this is a returned (blocked) user? Fram (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I tend to look at the article, not the contributor. I wrote that in fact before I saw the name of the user, as I had seen the exact same thing yesterday on several other recently submitted pages, which I shall now try to collect. As you say, the idea of doing this could occur to more than one person, but I think I recall seeing it on figures of a similar very slight degree of importance. I have also see the old (and in fact the new dnb cited as a source for people who are only mentioned, not the subjects of articles or receiving substantial coverage themselves. I'll try to find some of these also.

Fram, when you come back to see this, take a look at the item just above. It's .gov, but not a US-PD source. DGG ( talk ) 14:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift reply. I'll try to look at this and the thing above tomorrow! Fram (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eric A. Spiegel

Can I ask you why the copyright violation is being ignored. Never mind I see what you did...sorry spoke to soon. :- ) Moxy (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

DGG -- A BIG thank you for your help in getting me started on fixing this. I see what you did and now understand. Many, many thanks! CRHassettVA4 (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I rewrote it entirely. The copyvio from the source listed was only in the first paragraphs, but I assumed the rest was copyvio also and I rewrote them also, as well as changing the general pattern of the article to our style. I rarely do it for business executives, but he seems important enough.

For anyone watching, there are some internal signs of promotional-style biographies for businessmen that are almost always copyvio as well (besides the obvious giveaway of a statement of how important the company is, and especially a statement of how important their duties were in previous positions in the firm.)

Headings that use <big> instead of our formatting

Placing the education at the end, with a final sentence of about spouse and children.

Not giving the positions in chronological order, and often not including earlier positions except the one just before coming to the firm.

The corresponding signs for academics are slightly different, depending on whether they're done by a central office or by the individual. For senior administrators they characteristically include multiple junior executive positions and in-university awards. For any faculty, if the individual wrote it, it will often includes full details of all publications however minor; if the central office, it will omit most exact titles, especially for journal articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Local interest topics again

Hi DGG, a while back I asked you for your position on local interest topics. I think you may have forgotten about it. Could you see if you can find the time to give it another swing? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

As before, the problem is maintaining them free from promotionalism. The more local the organization, the more likely it is that any available sources will be essentially press releases. for example, I've got this problem in my own neighborhood, Boerum Hill: there are a number of interesting creative projects of various genres, as well as some fascinating stores, all with good coverage in the fairly respectable local paper, but that paper will essentially write an article on anything in the general area, and will say more or less what the proprietors tell it. (The paper's political coverage I do trust, and i could use it to justify articles on every city councilman and community board member in the Brooklyn, not to mention the losing candidates, but I don't want to push it against the consensus they aren't notable ) So Iwait until the NYTimes or at least New York covers something in a substantial way--New York may be a bit of a tabloid sometimes, but it isn't a PR outlet. I love local journalism. I even read it when I don't know the area--it shows the way people live, in all their variety. If we could maintain the articles, I might want to do it.

The best hope for this is a local wiki. The attempts at a local wiki in NYC haven't really taken off--there are insufficient people in any one neighborhood who understand, and the ones that exist tend to be dominated by the real estate agents and local attorneys. Or possibly something built around Open Street Maps--that sort of a geographical interface makes sense. Or a combined wiki, Wikipedia Two, still maintaining NPOV and sourcing, but not requiring notability and not all that strict on promotionalism.

actually, I'd like a three way split, WP, the general encyclopedia; WP 2 for local content, and WP+, for academically reviewed material. Citizendium offered promise for that third part, but it 's manner or working drove off too many of the good people. I in fact joined it as one of the original group of expert editors, but I didn't get along with Larry, and if you didn't support him, there was no place for you there. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. Reading what you say, and thinking about my own experiences, the problem here is that local newspapers are reliable on some subjects, but aren't necessarily reliable on all subjects. Because of that, we have no objective measure on how useful inclusion in a local newspaper is as a measure for inclusion in Wikipedia, and some organisations and individuals will take advantage off that to inject their self-promotion in to Wikipedia, so you prefer to rely on other sources that make it easier to draw a clear line. Is that roughly it, or am I just filling in my own perspective? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I prefer to rely on other methods than using the GNG to make it possible to draw a clear line. Decisions under the GNG come down to the details of what counts as reliable especially with respect to the key words "substantial" and "independent." Depending on what one wants to include or exclude, questions of what is a RS for notability purposes can often be rationally argued either way. But I've learned to work with the GNG, since it is unfortunately still the rule and likely to remain so.

And our key problem now is dealing with promotionalism. It's hard enough to deal with it in articles on major organizations--our standards for what we've accepted before were incredibly lax, and probably 90% of the articles on commercial and non-commercial organizations need to be rewritten. I'm reluctant to start including any thing that would add to the problem. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Mentioned you...

at User talk:Yngvadottir/Archive 3#Arkiv för nordisk filologi. Just thought it would be fair to let you know. --Hegvald (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

thanks, I'll be making a response there. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I've now made a response. Let me know if I can help with anything. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Wayra

Hi there. I noticed that you PROD on Wayra as being a non-notable business incubator, which expired on June 24th 2013. I would like to discuss this with you. Wayra is now the world's biggest technology incubator, and has academies in 14 countries. I am the CEO of a current member company. There are many press articles about Wayra in both Europe and Latin America. In the UK alone 28 companies either have been or are going through the incubator currently.

Wayra has also now partnered with UnLtd: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnLtd to create a joint social-business incubator called Wayra UnLtd. Again, there is much press coverage and independent coverage from non-profit organisations about this new incubator that establishes notability to some degree.

Wayra was opened by Boris Johnson, is run by Telefonica, has had guests such as HRH Prince Andrew, Duke of York, and numerous politicians, leading investors, etc visit it or mentor at it.

Are you willing to consider allowing me to contribute a neutral, informational piece on Wayra that establishes notability? In many ways it is more notable than Techstars for its breadth and reach, yet Techstars seems to have little problem securing a page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techstars

Thanks! JonathanMayUK (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It was only deleted by the WP:PROD deletion mechanism, and since anyone could have stopped the deletion while the prod was running, our practice is that it will be restored for any good faith editor who wants to work on it. I will restore it to your user space as User:JonathanMayUK/Wayra.

Please read WP:CORP and WP:COI before you begin editing. Remember that the references must be references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. They have to discuss the company not just record an investment or acquisition, and be written by independent writers and journalists show make it clear they are not just repeating the press releases.

That its the largest in its field is relevant, but not determinative, but you must have a source for it. That any of the companies have been substantial enough for WP articles would help. That notable people have visited there is usually not even relevant. It's done for the PR value, and we see no reason to repeat it.

It must provide information that a general reader coming across he name of the company would want to know, not directed at those who might want to participate or contribute. It can mention the social purpose of the group, but not talk extensively about its worthy intentions . It needs not discuss the principles of company law in the uK under which it is organised & regulated. It must not use adjectives of praise, the material given should show the notability so obviously that it isn't necessary.

The article UnLtd is not very satisfactory for many of these reasons, It uses words like "outstanding", It does not say what it has actually accomplished in the 13 years it has been operating , and not a single one of its references are really satisfactory, except the first one which can be used as a basis for the plain facts. At present, unless I, you, or someone fixes it, it is very likely to be deleted.

Techstars may have apparently written by a PR firm specializing in writing of WP , for it shows the characteristic hallmarks: about half of it is an anecdotal account of the formation of the company, which is of interest only to the principals and their immediate families. But it does the rest well: it shows the accomplishments, including formation of companies with articles here, many of its references are good. It needs editing, not deletion. I do that sort of editing & I'll clean it up tonight, if you want to look at it tomorrow.

After you've rewritten the article--try to do it within a week--, let me know here, and i will move it to mainspace if it is good enough. Let me know too, if you decide to add some ref showing accomplishments to UnLtd, I can fix it up also. Describe your joint enterprise in your own article, and refer to it in the Unltd one. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:COIN#Fairleigh Dickinson University

Hi DGG, I thought you should be aware that Mfuzia responded to your block proposal a few days ago. Crcorrea hasn't responded, though he/she hasn't made an edit since February 19 so I wouldn't expect a response. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

thanks, I followed up,saying I do not plan to do anything unless there are further problems if there are, please let me know,for I do not havetime to recheck everything that I ideally would want to. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Blackboard Inc. history

Hi there, DGG. I just noticed that when you moved over the new version of the Blackboard article, the history prior was deleted. Was that just not replaced after a histmerge? Not being an admin, I'm not well-versed in these things—but would it be easy to add back? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not particularly good at such manipulations; perhaps someone seeing this will help DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, no worries. I'll see if I can find a sysop hangout and hopefully someone else can handle it. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

User council

That was a truly extraordinarily brilliant statement. Let's hope the truly important people in the Foundation are following that discussion. My fear is that they are probably not, and that if a consensus is reached in support, they will then chime in and declare such a council as having no authority. Individually or as a body, they've already demonstrated in no uncertain terms in the past that they will not hesitate to disregard what the volunteers want and will continue to press for developments that they 'think' the community should have. The problem of communication has always been an issue - when the WMF doesn't want to know, it puts its hands over its ears. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not actually opposed to the latest developments: I find some of the features of the notification interface quite useful, and I'm very glad we have the visual editor, though for the sort of thing I mostly do, it's not yet useful. But it's allowing the NYC chapter to plan workshops in WP editing for non computer-literate groups that we could not previously have reached. And when I show it to computer-literate people who think the wikitext too much of a bother, they all say they're more likely to actually edit. The main thing the Foundation did wrong here is not having it years ago, and if they over-reacted by putting this one out before it was really ready, I can understand it. And I myself think I could adapt to any editing environment--any regular editor here should be able to do that.

But this would have been so much easier had they told us properly what they're doing, and asked our opinion, and persisted till they got consensus support, just as you and I must do if we want to make changes. Not all their views about communication are irrational; a good case could be made that it's the present in-project system of communication we have fallen into that is ridiculous, and I can see why they have such difficulty learning it. But if you want to talk to people and convince them, you have to learn their language. Trying to make them learn your superior ways is the arrogance of last century's imperialism. It developed together with modern capitalism, and elaborate NGOs and educational institutions, and those who come here with background in the corporate or formal institutional world tend to regard us as unenlightened primitives whose chaotic structure is incapable of actual function. Thus I have a practical suggestion, that everyone hired by the foundation, spend their first month in an apprenticeship editing a WP project on topics of their own choice, and helping with our housekeeping, and continue to do so for maybe 10% of their time, out on the shop floor with the working people. Even the missionary and anthropologist expected to earn respect from knowing the natives on their own terms. The proposals for having selected persons as intermediates is like an anthropologist using only translators.

Of course, by our own lights, it's our pattern of working that it the true one, and the chaos only apparent. We are here not for technical or vocational reasons in the usual sense, but to build a major work for the benefit of mankind on a principle of equal collaboration. Our idealism is not just a corporate slogan, but our continuing motivation. And the reason we expect our way to be followed and respected is that we've actually succeeded--we've made something more functional and helpful than we would have dreamed possible when we started, and certainly one of greater size and importance than all the critics thought we'd every be able to do--the conventional wisdom was that we'd collapse at 1/4 our present size. Now the theorists must rethink the way humans can work in groups based on the way we and multitudes of other such groups have succeeded in working.

Of course we're imperfect. We have not solved all the problems of human interactions. We need skilled people coming in from outside to keep us vital, and prevent us from self-complacency. That most of the experienced editors edit for 4 years at most is actually is a good thing. Those working here are mostly people at their most experimental and creative periods, and also an increasing number who have wide practical experience. Our role is not necessarily to work in our old ways, but to teach the new people how to develop their own ways, but in a manner that will not destroy what has been already accomplished. We are rationally afraid of outsiders coming in to solve our problems, and leave us a desert. DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

"they will not hesitate to disregard what the volunteers want and will continue to press for developments that they 'think' the community should have" That's for sure. PumpkinSky talk 02:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion

I wanted to ask if you could give a second opinion on this section of the Yelp inc. page. I originally had this under History. It has since then been substantially expanded and move into a "Controversy" section, before the feedback came in that we should avoid such names. I still feel it could be trimmed about 30% and should be moved back to History. For example, some of the individual accusations of Yelp manipulating reviews are only cited to local press or a Forbes blogger and are not as prominent as those that there were high-profile lawsuits for. There is some excessive wordiness, etc. But before I make specific suggestions, I would want to make sure that I am correct generally. I would like to avoid the appearance of micro-managing and lobbying in controversial areas. CorporateM (Talk) 15:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

responded there. DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! It's a good thing I did not push for trims. CorporateM (Talk) 00:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you think I can borrow you again here? If I have not over-burdened you with my requests yet. It is valuable to have input from someone that you can be confident will be correct. CorporateM (Talk) 00:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ruby McGregor-Smith

Hi. Instead of just posting warning boxes at the top of the article, could you please explain on the Talk Page your argument for flagging the article as being written like an advertisement and the content having been copied and pasted? It has been over a month and nothing has been discussed. Thanks, Vivj2012 (talk) 10:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Promotional:use of adjectives of praise

copyvio: first section copied almost word for word from [14] DGG ( talk ) 15:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you highlight the promotional content? I need examples of adjectives of praise so I can request another editor improves the content accordingly.Thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi DGG. The 'written like an advertisement' warning box has been at the top of the Ruby McGregor-Smith article for four months. Without knowing what's wrong with the content I'm unable to improve/resolve it. Could you get back to me when you have a moment? Many thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 09:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Deon Swiggs

It has been already voted to keep by Admins, so I will be removing the box you have placed on the article. Please do not go on a deleting spree. Thanks (talk) 10 July 2013 (NZST)

the AfD will decide, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deon Swiggs. I've been wrong before, and that's the purpose of AfD. to see what others think. I suggest that a more compact and less hagiographic article might help persuade people to keep it. DGG ( talk ) 15:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Merton Professor of English Language at the University of Oxford - notable?

Hi DGG! I wonder if you had time to offer some advice on an AFC submission. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Suzanne Romaine seems light on significant coverage in secondary sources, and has been declined at AfC for a paragraph about the person's academic work not having inline citations. The creator of the submission has asked about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Suzanne Romaine. The person seems perhaps to meet WP:PROF (criterion 5?) and seems to be an academic of some significance. What do you think? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Unquestionably notable. One of the provisions of WP:PROF is a named professorship at a major university. Nothing further has to be proven, and official sources do to prove it. DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC) .

Toll

Hi DGC. These divisions are huge and in terms of revenue and sales are bigger than some companies. Toll is big in Australia, Europe and Asia. I have only really started the articles. I think others will contribute to them.

Toll is really six very different companies using the toll brand. They have achieved their current size by acquiring many smaller companies around the world some of which have wikipedia pages. I believe that the next part of the process is to move the content from these the old articles into one of the six new articles. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_IPEC , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_Aviation and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_Priority are all part of Toll Global Express and this content needs to be migrated to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_Global_Express page. So I think that this means that there will be fewer pages in Wikipedia about Toll not more. I know that some Wikipedia editors get overprotective about their work so I am concerned about the reaction that I will get when I suggest on the talk page of these articles that they be effectively closed down and their content moved to the "History" section of the Toll Global Express page. Do you have any advice for best practices in regards to this process? Thanks for the help with the referencing. Regards --PinkAechFas (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it would in any case be a good idea to start there, merging the smallest, so I will support you. But please declare any conflict of interest; not that there need be any, for I have cleaned up similar article groups in the same way as you are proposing. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Curriculum of the Waldorf schools

Hi, this is a friendly heads-up that I took off the POV tag from this article awaiting an actual discussion or dispute on the talk page, which (the tag mentions) is supposed to exist first. Please open this, explaining what the issues are, and then re-add the tag. Thanks! hgilbert (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Re-reading, I used a more exact tag, on both it and the main article. I've added a mention why on each. I'm not sure how extensively I will have time to get involved in this closed circle of articles, but I call attention to problems when I see them. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

OK...if you do have time, it would be helpful if you can point to a few exemplary and specific issues. People have sometimes asked for more criticism integrated into the article, for example, but we need to find reliable sources to draw this from (blogs and personal websites not really qualifying here). hgilbert (talk) 09:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I did comment; but we need to find discussions of their methods in general works dealing with the topic of elementary and secondary educational curriculums. They seem prominent enough that I would expect them to be easily findable, though not perhaps online. The main article seems to have some relevant material that could be used. If it truly hard to find outside their own publications, then it's similar to the problem we have with many topics: if nobody from the main stream of discussion has covered their methods , are they notable outside their own group ? DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit description

Thanks for your edit description here, it's much nicer and more informative than the usual form message that gets left. --TKK ^{bark !} 00:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

deletion of Certified Penetration Testing Consultant

Thank you for deleting the Morning277 articles I tagged fro CSD G5. However, the block on Arifhasan23 was removed after I tagged Certified Penetration Testing Consultant. I wrongly decided not to remove the tag. —rybec 02:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

restored. Thanks for letting me know, because this in the 1/2 of 1% of false positives in this group of several hundred socks. DGG ( talk ) 08:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the page. I don't believe it's a false positive, but I'll take that up with the admin who unblocked. —rybec 15:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

yes, there are problems in how to deal with this and the similar not quite certain cases in the group. There are two possible ways of thinking about them: In the past, we have usually tended to AGF; at present, the extent of the problem is inclining us otherwise. My own feeling is still to use G11 instead of G5 when in doubt, but to use G11 rather more liberally than in the past. I think others feel the same about G11 at least--in practice, the G11 criterion is becoming "too promotional to be worth fixing" DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

After you restored the page, I took a closer look at it and identified several more accounts that look like sock-puppets. I belatedly realized that I should have looked more carefully at all those other articles, too. I also read a remark by Dennis Brown explaining that deletion would make investigation more difficult. Is there a way to make them viewable again, in furtherance of the SPI, without causing too much work for the administrators, and is that something you'd be willing to do (I was thinking temporary undeletion, moving to subpages of the SPI, moving to my user space, or use of Special:Export)? Here's a list that includes most of the deleted articles (namely, the ones I had watch-listed and which were recently deleted):

Extended content

4Cabling Aasted American Writers and Artists Inc. Amvona Bizible Brendan Wallace Brosix (Company) Bunndle CHMB (company) Campus Apartments Certified Disaster Recovery Engineer Chris Hobart ClassDojo Cleeng Confio CrowdOptic DDC Advocacy David Kiger David Schwedel (entrepreneur) Digital Prospectors Corporation Dominique Molina Echopass Emmanuel Gregory Lemelson Ethan Bearman Fundology Game Cooks GatherSpace (company) Genius Inside Global Met Coal Corporation Go Try It On GroundWork Heel That Pain (company) Heliospectra ITelagen Inflection (company) Inigral John Uustal Jonathan Cardella Junk It! Legitmix Loyaltyworks (company) MarketLive Max Cartier MediCortex Mike Macadaan Misty Lown Neal Creighton, Sr Network Capital NewYorkStay ONEHOPE Oren Laurent PCN Technology (company) PeopleSmart Pneuron PressPad RepairClinic.com ResumeBear Review Boost (company) SJ (musician) Security Innovation SocialSoft Steven M. Neil Sweetcouch TableTopics Talk:Brendan Wallace Talk:Confio Talk:CrowdOptic Talk:David Kiger Talk:Dominique Molina Talk:Ethan Bearman Talk:Fundology Talk:Genius Inside Talk:Kevin R. Foote Talk:Legitmix Talk:Max Cartier Talk:Mike Macadaan Talk:NewYorkStay Talk:ONEHOPE Talk:Oren Laurent Talk:RepairClinic.com Talk:SJ (musician) Talk:Steven M. Neil Talk:Tee Ashira Talk:Tom Dyson Talk:Tsebo Outsourcing Group Talk:WorldEscape Tee Ashira Telly (website) Tom Dyson Tom Hoban (entrepreneur) Tom Kemp (entrepreneur) Tsebo Outsourcing Group Virool Waterfield Group WorldEscape Zipwhip

I realize that this request is likely to be annoying and I'm sorry, but I hadn't made an SPI report before. I don't mind going to Deletion Review but thought I'd ask you first. —rybec 20:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	thank u 3bdulelah (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll try may best to find English sources. all what I have now are Arabic ones. the problems is that most of the media call most of the armed opposition groups as FSA 3bdulelah (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Arabic sources are fine. Just give a translation of a key sentence. DGG ( talk ) 15:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of EDP Energias do Brasil

Hi, DGG. I agree that the reason for deleted (creation by sock) is valid and serious. However, I have understandings that this is usually used for newly created articles, not for articles which have been for years and have been edited by number of other editors. Is there any other reason for deletion in addition to G5? The company itself is notable, so maybe you could restore the last version to my user space and I will clean it up before recreating? The problem with Edson Rosa's socks is that if we delete all articles what they have created, we should delete most of articles about Brazilian companies (and also some others from other countries). And it is impossible to stop his current editing as he uses dynamic IP from the Sao Paolo region. Beagel (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that that is a consideration, but it should also be weighed against rewarding socks. If they know that the articles they create will remain, no matter how they create them, we keep the incentive for others to pay socks to continue to do this and it is getting way out of hand Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277--I am One of Many (talk) 07:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Right. It's not impossible to stop the current editing. If we manage to remove all the articles now present, and continue to remove them as they get submitted, then there will be no incentive for that editor to continue. It's the only defense we have. (I did not previously think this way, but the problems we have now been finding are so severe, that they threaten the objectivity of the encyclopedia, and it's time for emergency measures. I agree there's a problem about removing such a large body of content, and the articles should be rewritten. Perhaps the time to rewrite them will be a little while in the future, once we get this editor to stop--and to rewrite them without any of their work in the edit history. I can certainly make the material available to use the references as a base for such rewriting, but perhaps it would be wise to wait. I see only one alternative solution, which is to require identification from editors, and that is such as drastic change in our principles that it is not yet time to propose it. It would be a serious compromise in our mission, but it's a better alternative than permitting promotional editing. We would lose truly open editing, but we'd still have an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 07:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

note: I have come to re-evaluate the question of the articles by this particular editor. They seem for the most part unequivocally useful, and often just what we would do ourselves if we were adding content on these topics. I'm unsure how to handle this, and my opinion varies. Some other sockfarms have been very different, with promotional articles on sub-notable companies. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Busman's holiday

FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decline of library usage. Warden (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

yes, there is nothing more amusing that taking a statistical report from an organization and finding the holes in it. I used to take library statistics and do this for my class--nice to have another opportunity. Unlike then, I have other things to do, or I could have kept going for pages. Academic grade for the article, B+ (as of the time it was written--if someone presented it now it would be a B- for outdated sources), grade for the deletion argument, C-. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Legiotex

Hello. I write because my item has been deleted for being promotional. Yet another article similar to mine or just has not been erased. He advised me to do my article a consultant Legiotex Article modeled Apifresh, because I have no idea of ​​the use of Wikipedia. I do not understand why the two items that are similar European projects. One remains in Wikipedia and the other has been removed. So it would be very grateful, if I say I should delete or phrases are incorrect by having commercial hue. Thank you very much, greetings. Thanks for your help. I'm trying to search for similar items to see and compare. To correct mine. Any help from you will be welcome, especially where promotional tone note in the article.Rubendesign (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Rubendesign (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll give you some advice in the next few days. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Sarah Franscesca Green (AfC academics)

Can I get a second opinion on something? I'm having a mild dispute on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sarah Franscesca Green, who I believe satisfies criteria 5 of WP:PROF by being a Professor of Social and Cultural Anthropology at the University of Helsinki and previously serving the same named appointment at the University of Manchester - both posts are verifiable by the respective entries on the universities' websites. Other AfC reviewers have declined the article and the creator is asking questions on the help desk. Can you clarify this person meets the notability criteria? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I accepted it. The publications plus the position make for notability, tho reviews of her books need to be added. I personally think all full professors at a major university meet WP:PROF. Opinion at AfD has not consistently supported me--some of the experienced eds. regularly discussing the topic do not think it necessarily sufficient except for the traditional UK style universities where there is one professor of something. I have almost always been able to show such people notable, except in fields against which there is a prejudice, such as education or other traditionally female-dominated fields. But it's likely enough to accept any AfC that's ok otherwise. (In addition, anyone who has published two books at good publishers which have received significant reviews meets WP:AUTHOR, which is actually an exceedingly loose criterion, tho in this case the book reviews need to be shown.

The request for secondary sources is unnecessary, when other criteria than the GNG is being used. The university site is a reliable source to prove the position; the books prove themselves--though I generally add the WorldCat reference for them & verify that they are actual books rather than just reports, and journal articles are proven by the journal references themselves.

I am systematically examining all the hundreds of declined AfCs for for academics to see which I can rescue, and this AfC was on my list. I could go much faster except that one of the things that always needs to be checked is copyvio from their university site. And, of course, I try to improve any accepted article to our customary format & referencing styles. It is unrealistic to expect new users to learn these perfectly before getting articles accepted. Nobody should be reviewing who does not know how to fix articles or at least know correctly & specifically what is actually needed and clearly explain it to the new editor in detail, rather than just use the temp[late.

AfC is notorious for people using their own private ideas of the WP standards, whether to decline or accept. Thousands of promotional or even copyvio AfCs have been accepted over the years, and we need to locate & get rid of those articles if they can't be quickly fixed. DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and for passing the article. My general understanding is that a named appointment means the academic world at large has decided your work is worthy of note and should be published to further the understanding of human knowledge - which, to me, is what "notability" is all about. The problem with professors is their work isn't typically distributed to the general public, so inherent notability acts as a "free pass" where we assume the sources must exist, but are non-trivial to access. Schools and villages are two other classes of article that regularly come under fire for "not enough sources", but can be passed via an alternative guideline. And, as I recently discussed as a meetup, the general opinion is that there are a large amount of people holding public office in African governments who would pass WP:POLITICIAN, but we don't have an article for them.

As you've no doubt seen, AfC has come under fire recently, partially for its technical design, but partly because there's generally insufficient good judgement in reviews. I think the "canned responses" you get in the helper script is one of the most damaging things, and most of my work at AfC is on the help desk, where writing a tailored response to the particular problem is required, and generally gets better results. I don't think enough people work with the article submitters - even if somebody submits a non-notable promotional piece, there's still the opportunity to teach them basic notability and verifiability policies, so if they go away understanding Wikipedia better, that's a plus point. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

(1) The key word there is "named" appointment. Some professorships are endowed or memorial appointments, normally pay somewhat to considerably more, and are considered great honors. The longer-established school have many of them, others a few. A named full professorship of this sort at a major university is recognized by everyone working on the subject as notable.

(2) You are absolutely right about a AfC. And I agree that the ideal solution for someone who writes an article that will never be acceptable is when they realize it , and withdraw the submission themselves.There's a message I use, modified as needed : " If you decide that the article cannot presently meet our standards, you can facilitate matters by placing at the top a line reading : {{db-author}}, and it will be quickly deleted.. When you have the necessary material, then try again. I do not want to discourage you, but to urge you to continue to contribute."

(3)general principles of notability later tonight. . DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Baltimore County Councilman

Hi DGG,

A page of mine was recently marked for deletion (David Marks, Baltimore County Councilman). I apologize that I was not following proper Wikipedia procedure. I want to make this a genuine article on Councilman Marks, and am not trying to make it a political advertisement. I was wondering if you could tell me if this page for a Baltimore City Councilman is in correct form: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_B._Kraft

I want to get this article right and apologize for not creating it in the proper manner.

Thank you, SKahl7180Skahl7180 (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Carl Stokes (Baltimore) is better. . They all need some edits to remove adjectives of praise. And the legislative history should include only bills that they are actually primarily responsible for, with a 3rd party source to prove it, not one of several sponsors. Concentrate on factual things, such as the elections, not on the positions, which belong in an political advertisement Let me know when you are ready.~

Crown Disposal, Inc

Hi, DGG.

I noticed that you had deleted the page for Crown Disposal, Inc a few months ago. I was hoping to convince you that an A7 ("not significant") was unwarranted. Crown Disposal is a fairly sizeable company and a large player in the California waste management industry, operating multiple waste facilities as well as having relationships with other large players, including Recology, a very large and very well-known company.

Further, the events that have occurred at their landfill in Lamont, California are perhaps significant in and of themselves - two young men died there in very unfortunate circumstances, caused in fact by extremely poor safety equipment, practices and training. In fact, the local authorities revoked their permit for operation, and there is an ongoing court battle over whether or not this company can continue to operate, especially in light of their multiple safety and environmental violations.

Given the current situation in the area (Lamont was reported to have the worst air quality in the US) and Crown / CRRR's involvement in local environmental destruction, I believe that Crown Disposal is a significant entity, worthy of a Wikipedia entry, and I believe the article as written explained that. Of course, I'd be happy to work with you and other editors to improve the article, if you'd like to see it improved.

Wikipedia is a place everyone - from kids at school to housewives, homebuyers, residents, workers, even important corporate types - goes to learn about people, places, historical events, and corporations. I believe that an article about a corporation with this kind of track record is an important addition to Wikipedia.

Thanks, DGG. Appreciate any comments or help you might be willing to share! Sandyhart68 (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I will take a look today DGG ( talk ) 13:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I see the AfC you created on Apr 25, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Crown Disposal Co., within a few minutes of when you created the identicalmainspace article.The AfC was declined on May 1 by another editor. I wonder why you didn't mention the AfC just now. I see you added a related paragraph to Recology to say they used one of the company's facilities for a part of the operations. You also added information about not yet substantiated charges against Recology. You're obviously somewhat involved in this issue. G11 is used not only for articles promoting a company, but articles promoting a cause. Obviously it can be difficult to distinguish between neutrally reporting about a cause or a company and promoting it. I think the best step is to proceed with improving the AfC, rather than restoring the article and, probably, sending it to AfD .

If this was a natural person, I'd say that what you were doing is added poorly supported negative information. Our standards are not quite as strict for companies, though I am not sure all your information is supported at all, or that it is proportionate coverage, or that everything you added as been in a neutral manner-- as one example, in an article on another company you said "Republic Services has also had several high-profile fines..." -- where does the word "high-profile" come from? Had the company used it in praising itself, it would be removed, and this works in both directions.

I have every personal sympathy for your general position, but that's not relevant here.

What I think we need in articles on companies is greater attention to the history of the company, rather than the routine appointments and the occasional court case. Some of the articles on firms in this industry have extensive earlier copyvio sections on this from company publications. This is of course the wrong way to go about it, but they will serve adequately as sources. Historical data for any public company and most large private companies is relatively easy to obtain, and any business library can help--most even medium size public libraries have the basic sources. Finding them on line can be difficult ,as the relevant databases tend to be quite expensive (and focused on the immediate current situation) Resist the temptation to tie these too closely in with social developments--this sort of connection should only be done when there are third party sources noneed to apologize. Tho afcwas intended to make things discussing it. With the background of a substantial article, specific incidents can be given without being disproportionate to the rest of the article. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, DGG for getting back to me on this. I apologize about not mentioning the the AfC; it's been awhile since I looked at the page, or even thought about Crown, until I was discussing them with a friend. I believe what happened when I submitted the article originally, I didn't understand what had happened to the article; while it was in queue for review, it appeared to me as if it had disappeared, so I just made it again (while I'm on wikipedia a lot, and have made edits and contributions, that was my first stab at creating a page - chalk it up to me being a newbie, and please accept my humble apology for making rookie errors).

Your points are well taken. When I have some time, I'll try to get back to the original submission and spruce it up a bit and try again. Thanks! Sandyhart68 (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

no need to apologize. AfC was intend to make things easier for beginners, but instead it often just adds to the possible sources of confusion. We're having an interesting discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC 2013 of whether we should require it; that seems to be soundly rejected, and the discussion is now more on the question of whether we should even recommend it. I think your opinion might be worthwhile having. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Canadian Association of HIV Research

Another editor created Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Canadian Association of HIV Research, which has been rejected.

This is a national scholarly association, but I can't find reliable sources for it. A google search for Canadian Association of HIV Research conference shows plenty of research presented at its conferences. Could you please take a quick look at the article? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not an unusual situation for professional societies. Personally, I'd simply include them all, if they cover a wide enough field & are the leading national societies. This is an area where the GNG is useless. Reliable information about them is typically only found in their own newsletters & websites, and in financial reports of their activities. Anything in a third party source is very apt to be nonsubstantial or derived from there,

The afc as submitted should have been deleted immediately before G13 got to it as promotional and mostly copyvio--it's essentially a republication of their objectives and a list of officers. Web sites need to be read carefully: I notice their claim is not to be the largest Canadian organization devoted to AIDS research, which is probably Canadian Federation for AIDS Research, but the largest Canadian association of AIDS researchers. It may in fact be not just the largest but the only Canadian national organization of AIDS researchers

The best way to cover these, as I think you suspect, is to write an article on the series of conferences, or to make the main content of the article the series of conferences. We are so lamentably weak in doing these for many of the most important international conferences that this article is not my highest priority. DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

AfC Mojsisovics

Hi DGG, I've taken on board what you've said and would appreciate some feedback, when you get a chance. There's been a few problems with your hints though: Firstly there are no known recordings of his works - Unfortunately there doesn't exist any Austrian discography reliable or otherwise. Conversations with the Austrian Mediathek in Vienna and various libraries were equally fruitless. Reviews of his works suffer a similar fate: - Nothing can be researched in EBSCO host 'cause anything over 30 years isn't deemed valid (impact factor etc etc - you're a librarian you know the jig). RILM etc don't offer any reviews either. I've cleaned up the referencing section and have had to quote an apparently anonymous site or two. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks Austriancomposers (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This can become a formidable research project, and it won't be necessary for justifying the existence of the article, thanks to the listing in Grove. I adjusted the style a little, made links to and from his notable students, and accepted it. It can always be improved later. DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Journals at MEDRS

There's a discussion at WT:MEDRS about indexing biomedical journals that would probably benefit far more from your presence than from mine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

thanks for letting me know. I commented. They are looking for a black/white test for reliability, and there isn't any. DGG ( talk ) 16:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Mojsisovics

Hi DGG,

just wanted to say thanks. THANK YOU!

Austriancomposers (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Meaning of "consensus of the community"

Because of a disagreement about it, I started a strawpoll/rfc inquiring into the meaning of the phrase "consensus of the community" at WP:CLOSE. I then looked through the history to see when that phrase was added and discovered it was added by you in this edit. Perhaps you'd be willing to tell us what you meant?

See: Wikipedia_talk:Closing_discussions#RFC.2FStrawpoll:_Clarification_of_what_.22consensus_of_the_community.22_means.

Thanks! --B2C 23:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That was not the point of my addition in 2008, as I've explained there. I also discussed my current position on the issue you raised. If the situation I discuss is not what you intended to discuss, let me know, and i will comment further. I don't think a straw poll at this point is useful, and I suggest that instead it be changed to a discussion. DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

And in fact, I see that the topic of discussion was the uniformity of article titles. Of all possible MOS issues, this is the one which needs to be adapted to the individual circumstances, and a rigid uniformity is impractical. To try to bring a discussion about general consensus on WP when the actual purpose is dissatisfaction about some article title decisions seems a misconceived use of limited editor resources. . The relevant principles are Let well enough alone and We are here to write an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Nils Otto Myklestad

I am delighted that you chose to review the submission, and I will continue to work on the page to strengthen it in the ways you suggested. The initial rejection was indeed a jolt but also an indication to me that I had not made the case, perhaps because I first met Myklestad in 1962 and have known and appreciated his work over these many years since; been too close to it maybe.

I have made a few suggestions for changes to the Wikipedia vibration page and see other ways in which I can suggest changes to other pages that may be helpful to others. So my commitment to the process is renewed. Many thanks.

Kllwiki (talk) 03:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Problematic IP

Hello. Would you mind semi-protecting the academic journal Boundary 2 Talk page. An anonymous IP has become problematic, and has violated WP:3RR (not to mention wasting editors' time). Please see most recent edit history. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I'm the IP here. I and another editor have made several good-faith edits about how to improve the page. These were censored by Randykitty and Steve Quinn. The journal is not peer-reviewed (common knowledge around the Humanities -- even the journal's webpage and frontmatter no longer use the term "peer-reviewed" to describe itself) and yet wiki editors Steve Quinn and Randykitty insist on using Ulrich database, which is out of date, as the definitive reference. At any rate, that discussion should continue until the matter is resolved with a reference that OAA editors like Quinn and Randykitty won't remove.204.15.145.111 (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

As I have taken a position in the discussion, I cannot use page protection. My previously expressed view holds, that they use a form of editorial review appropriate for the nature of the material, but not precisely peer-review is the usual sense. Trying to reduce this to a single word is impossible. Ulrich's did the best it could with the situation within their own parameters and limitations, but we can and should give more exact information . DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I also think the fact that this is listed in selective indexing services says or implies that this journal is peer reviewed. I am thinking that the Ulrich's reference is not even needed to say this is peer reviewed. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

While we have a good reference that says this is peer-reviewed, we have no reference that says otherwise. So all we can (and should say) is what the source says up until such time that a better source becomes available. The "good faith" edits referred to by the IP are not that at all. They are rants about WP editors and the editors of b2 and have no place on a talk page (see WP:TALK). Meanwhile, I'd like to note that the journal's editors are "peers" too... --Randykitty (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No, they're not. There is no one on staff who is a specialist in Chinese culture, which would be necessary for a "peer" review in this issue: http://boundary2.dukejournals.org/content/38/1.toc - they may be "reviewed" but they're certainly not disciplinary "peers".136.145.122.85 (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

And who says that in a case like that, they don't consult with outside specialists? Any proof for that? There is no source anywhere that says that there is no peer review. There is a good source that says there is peer review. End of discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 11:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a better source, the journal itself, which does not corroborate that what you claim is true. What the journal states about itself is the definite reference. End of discussion.136.145.122.85 (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it is not the best source. A journal could say about itself "the most important journal in the world", for example. And at WP primary sources should not be used if secondary sources are available. --Randykitty (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no POV or notability issue here, or something imaginary that b2 is claiming about itself. We have an outdated secondary source that is being used as a definitive reference. So, no, there's no reliable secondary source, until--as has been noted ad nauseum on the talk page-- Ulrich's database is updated.136.145.122.85 (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should infer peer review from listing in selective indices (we don't need to, anyway), in the same way that I've stated on the article talk page that we shouldn't infer a lack of peer review from the fact that the journal's front-matter doesn't mention peer review. Dricherby (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Ulrich's says it's peer-reviewed, which is the source I was referring to in my comment above. Most indexes will indeed include almost exclusively peer-reviewed publications, but the important word here is indeed "almost"... --Randykitty (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The way to word it is to say that Ulrich's says it is peer reviewed, and give further explanation citing the journal. I' explained more fully on the talk p. But the attack on the journal is inexplicable--unless it is perhaps connected with the attack by "Quorty" on various US connected literary figures. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

deleted page (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

hi DGG, I am working for Cheil Worldwide, an advertising agency located in South Korea. Yesterday, I found out the company information on Wiki was pretty outdated so made some changes. There are lots of other contents to be added and/or revised. However this morning I found out it was deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheil_Worldwide 17:51, 16 July 2013 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page Cheil Worldwide (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

I don't understand what I was trying to umambiguously advertise or promote on the Wikipedia, but if you could let me know which sentences were such cases, that would be appreciated. Would you be able to retrieve the Cheil_Worldwide article please? If you'd like to have more conversation, you can reach me at soomee.moon at cheil.com (I am not familiar with Wikipedia system to be honest, so trying to learn about it step by step.) thanks, Soomee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonsoomee (talk • contribs)

I shall look at the other article you mentioned.[Moonsoomee has not mentioned any other article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)] The problem about promotionalism with the one you wrote are first, the use of extravagantly promotional language: its "thousands of global employees create ideas that move brands, products and people from nearly 40 offices in 33 countries. ... delivers innovative communications strategies that drive business results ... creativity is world renown, ..." Second, the attempt to list the executives of all the divisions, and the very long list of services in the infobox, all of which are totally routine for an advertising agency. The article was nominated for deletion by a reliable editor, and any admin here would unquestionably have deleted it. Even were this rewritten, you have no usable references according to the WP:GNG. The AdAge material is not visible, though I will try to find a place to see it. (if it is widely available in subscribing libraries, it's usable, if it's more restrictive, it isn't--but it in any case needs a specific link or reference. and should give a sourced quotation. ) Everything else is a mention or a press release. If you are the largest agency in the country, it should be possible to write an article, but you need to first find good independent news and magazine sources that say it.

Our current best practice for people acting as press agents for a company is to submit the article through WP:Articles for creation, which gives people here a chance to review it. The rules about promotional articles, though, apply there also. Try rewriting it neutrally, with good sources, but do it there. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi DGG, When I tried the WP:Articles for creation, below message popped up. I am happy to do it through WP:Articles for creation but can I have the deleted article (Cheil_Worldwide) to make changes? I did not save the wording and it's a lot of work to start from scratch. --Moonsoomee (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

---

A page with this title has previously been deleted. If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below. 17:51, 16 July 2013 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page Cheil Worldwide (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

---

Another questions is the "good independent news and magazine sources" - some of the sources are available to paid subscribers only. Or, some are not in English. In such cases, should I just give up introducing such facts? --Moonsoomee (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

1. .I have moved it to User:Moonsoomee/Cheil Worldwide for improvements.
2. .References in any language are acceptable, but if not in English, translate at least the title.
3. .References behind paywalls are acceptable, if you have actually seen them.
4. .The main problem is not additional facts, it's rewriting to remove the advertising, especially from the first part. Try doing it without adjectives entirely. List only the principal line of business in the infobox, and only the CEO.
5. , Please check with me before moving it back. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Myklestad

I did more work on the Myklestad biography and have a couple of questions. But before that thanks again, and again.

Most of his work was published and how he is best known is as N. O. Myklestad or sometimes Nils O. I used the full name for completeness. Should the page title be changed to N O Myklestad or an alias created? If so how?

Much of my information comes from a Univ Texas Arlington internal memorial document as well as resumes that I have. I was his next to last PhD student and inherited his library, so I have a lot of first-hand information, but no official bio information reference yet. He was a fellow of American Association for the Advancement of Science so I can probably find something there or in a Who's Who but I have to go the Univ Library tomorrow to dig that out. Is the page OK till I get that sorted out?

I also have a report on the Spruce Goose in my office to get the specs on and maybe one on the B36. And I'd like to track down his other PhD students and add that info which I can probably do through dissertation abstracts.

Meanwhile take a look at the page if you have time and let me know how you think it's going.

Many thanks - Kent Lawrence

Kllwiki (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

1. We do not consider who's who and related publications a reliable source, because the subject of the article controls what is being written. They can however be used for the plain facts of birth, education and so on.
2. Has the U Texas document been published on the web, or elsewhere. If so, you can use it.
3. The notability of a scientist depends on the extent to which his work is cited. For publications in his period, there will not necessarily be complete information, but see what you can find in GoogleScholar/Scopus/Web of Knowledge.
4. Alternative notability depends on the books being used as standard works, with substantial reviews. Get information on editions and library holdings from Worldcat, and try to find reviews of them.
5. What is really needed, is awards he has been given, not just those named after him.
6. The way to make credirects is to make a page under the alternate form of the name, with the contents reading only #Redirect[[Nils Otto Myklestad]] DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Understand. Google scholar gives a lot of evidence of the contribution of the Myklestad Method with over 200 references to its use from 1946 to 2013. I'll be out on travel for 10 days or so but will provide additional documentation on the other points when I return. Thanks for the constructive comments. See now that I really didn't do my homework before starting on this project.

Kllwiki (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Integrationalism

Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Integrationalism, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: article is about a book, not a person, so A7 does not apply. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 09:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

my error, of course; I can't imagine how I came to make it. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

A good example of the two-pairs-of-eyes effect. I apologise for templating you: I was using the CSDHelper script, and was surprised (and amused) when it told me who it had notified. JohnCD (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I would much rather be templated, than not told of my errors. DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Business & Decision

Hello DGG ! I wonder if Business & Decision wiki is not quite a promotional article. Do you think it could be proposed for deletion ? Thank's for your opinion. Best regards. 2A01:E35:243A:FAF0:216:CBFF:FEA7:C51A (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I already tried this April at AfD. It was closed as keep. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ted Eisenberg et al

I'm just going to retract all of it, delete what I wrote. If Wikipedia wants this, "Booby Piggy Bank" and this guy's article with references only to having done the world's most breast augmentations and a hatchet thrower as a hobby, which is in a blog, not a news article, nor AOL, that's fine. It was nominated for deletion once, and kept.

He might be the only practicing osteopath breast cosmetic surgeon with a listing on Wikipedia. So be it. I am not going to fight. I was outraged, but I give up now.

Aaron Swartz's "partner" was a woman, but that was a subject of contention too. The newspaper described her as "his girlfriend". What is wrong with having a girlfriend? Instead, user Mark Bernstein and others agreed that the gender "she" should not be used. Given that her name is not gender-specific, Taren, it is difficult to know what gender she is.

Similarly, for John Forbes Nash, PhD and Nobel prize winner, he had a younger sister and married a woman who graduated with a bachelor's degree in physics from MIT. None of that was in the article. I added it. I also read the talk page, which went into lengthy debate about whether or not he is homosexual. A lengthy discussion is currently on the talk page about whether anal or oral penetration is necessary to define homosexual activity. The fact of the matter, which I wrote in the talk page (it was promptly deleted, unlike anything else I have experienced here) was that John Nash had several relationships with different women, and was a handsome man, who loved his grandmother and parents. He was an excellent student, enjoyed school, and chose Princeton because he wanted to be nearer to his family in West Virginia. He wasn't some sort of misanthrope. He is happily remarried to his wife now, works, goes on trips with his colleagues at the Advanced Instiitute at Princeton, and takes nice photographs with beautiful women smiling at him and of himself interacting with his colleagues (all PhD mathematicians). But no, so many people who write on WP only want to portray successful men as alienated underachievers who didn't get along with their families, and were disliked because they were homosexual. I'm sorry, but everyone who is brilliant and accomplished cannot fit that profile. Nor are they Libertarian. The Noam Chomsky page describes HIM as Libertarian too!

In the article about women's breasts, actually bras, it cites at length a supposed medical condition that causes a young woman's developing breasts to increase massively almost over night. I checked all the sources cited, none of which said that any such condition was known to exist. Far be it from me to remove that. I would be afraid, lest, I sound outraged.

I'm sorry. You are a kind person. I am too agitated right now, am unemployed and scared, frayed nerves. Thank you for your help and support. I will be back, I am sure. I really want to do more with good Richard Baron Kahn of Cambridge Circle. He conceived of the Keynesian multiplier and has hardly anything in Wikipedia. I also like watching over William Janeway's BLP. I'm not sure why. Jared Cohen's BLP is ridiculous. Dave Winer's BLP is slowly evolving to converge on reality. He's such an egregiously grumpy, mean persona online.

I've been trying to write the entry for The Levant in Wikitravel. That's going to be a challenge! Somehow, I think a tourist guide for Israel, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan will be less contentious than writing about brassieres on Wikipedia. --FeralOink (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I have done my best to remove articles that amount to advertising, and this includes physicians. Those fields not covered by typical medical insurance in the US are those most likely to advertise, and this primarily amounts to those doing cosmetic plastic surgery, from any of the many specialties that try to include it within their scope of practice. I've made a point of checking from time to time, & many of the articles have been removed by now. The ones that aren't, are in two groups; the legitimate group is where there is the same notability as other physicians under WP:PROF, and the articles are purely descriptive--essentially, that amounts to a few researchers, and a few heads of services in major hospitals. The less legitimate group is where the people have done sufficient PR that there is substantial newspaper coverage of their activities--the problem here is the same as any local businessperson doing this, which is why I tend to be very restrictive about local notability. There's an intermediate class, not limited to cosmetic surgeons, where they are notable as authors for writing successful popular health books. Under our extremely liberal rules for NAUTHOR, there is often no way to remove the article (this does not apply here--the book is published by a firm publishing PR books, and is in a total of 6 libraries).

I now need to decide whether I will fix the article by omitting the nonsense, or AfD it myself. As I currently have a somewhat more deletionist approach to PR than the consensus, I use AfD when in doubt, and some of my AfDs do get rejected, which lets me see the current consensus. There is an attitude of some admins, that they will use speedy to remove articles they thing shouldn't be here, in the knowledge that the great majority won't be challenged. I well understand the temptation. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I have returned. Didn't take long, did it ;o) Please forgive me for my rant? I am sorry. I would like to give you a very large barn award, but you might find that embarrassing. It might also slow page load of your already heavily burdened talk page. If you want, you can feel free to erase some of my earlier diatribe. If you don't want to, that is okay too. It does not make me feel embarrassed at all, after re-reading it. If you keep it, I promise that I will not feel affronted and complain, loudly, as I did in a prior episode with a different WP personality (which I am now feeling some chagrin about... a little, maybe, maybe not). Thank you for your tolerance and patience with my indignation and high spirits. --FeralOink (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Outsell (deleted article)

Hi DGG, I think you should be aware of a request I made to to Smartse. Thanks! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

yes, thanks. I didn't come on it by chance--I'm actively looking among recent accepted AfCs for promotional articles, because some of the reviewers seem to not recognize them--or possibly not even know that they shouldn't be accepted. DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate you are doing that. You might send a friendly note to the AfC reviewer (time consuming, I know) explaining promotional language. Many of the AfC reviewers have taken heat recently for declining articles with reliable sources, so momentum may have swung the other direction. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It will be a little tricky, as it's a very experienced and generally trustworthy editor--and someone I know personally to be reliable. We all make mistakes. See a little above at Integrationalism for a really stupid one of my own. And I may perhaps be more sensitive to detecting PR, because most of what I do here these days is looking for it. Sometimes in fact I'm oversensitive, judging by consensus of good people at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

FDU

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Fairleigh Dickinson University and PublicMind. Thank you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

saw it there before I saw this. Article is deleted, & recommended an indef block. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll just note that your comment that you "will certainly send the contents to any uninvovled editor who wishes to use themas a start for a proper article" might be read by a tendentious editor as an invitation for meatpuppetry (of which there's already a history). Just beware. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint; I adjusted the wording. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Anthologies

G'day DGG,

Thanks for your comment We normally accept inclusion in anthologies as notability [15], which as well as being a welcome contribution to that particular discussion interests me more generally.

I agree we should, but is this documented anywhere? I can't find any explicit mention in guidelines or policies or help pages, but perhaps I'm just looking in the wrong places.

Or, are there other notability discussions where inclusion in anthologies has been cited as evidence? I don't lurk on AfD currently (I used to but WP:RM seemed to have a greater need) so I'd have missed them.

Any help appreciated. I'm vaguely thinking of proposing some sort of tweak to notability guidelines to better cover hymnists, and don't want to be reinventing the wheel and/or generating useless instruction creep. Andrewa (talk) 03:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

we've routinely used this for poets and writers of short stories, and for short stories themselves-- see for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mouse (short story), where it was used in a negative sense, deleted for not being in anthologies. I don't know we've used it in this context before. There was an explicit guideline once somewhere; I typically have the sort of memory that always remembers if I've seen something, but not necessarily where or when. Actually, I consider this an exceedingly broad criterion, but so is NBOOK, and in consequence NAUTHOR. . DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

AnchorFree

Hi DGG,

Were you aware that AnchorFree was created by a suspected Morning277 sockpuppet? Do you consider the edits you have made to the article to have pushed it out of the realm of G5? Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

yes,I was aware; I thought it was important for use to have this article. It was not an easy decision, but they have political role. I explicitly did it to put it beyond the range of G5. If you think it should be deleted anyway, AfD can always decide to do so. DGG ( talk ) 14:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

What about BofI Federal Bank (company)? You declined to delete it in April, and the creator was only uncovered and blocked months later. I'm honestly just trying to get your opinion here on what should be kept, what is worth keeping. I am truly torn on a lot of these sock-created pages. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

As I've said before, it's a dilemma to which I have no solution, but I'm trying to think of one. We can't remove everything that might be by a sock, because while still letting anybody start an article. Our removing articles by known socks has not stopped people from persisting at it. (Some have certainly acted as if it were a contest, and been willing to keep going for many years.)

1. The way I've been approaching it, and the way at least some others have, is keeping anything sufficiently important where a known reliable editor will taker responsibility for fixing the#REDIRECT [[]] article. This at least has the merit that the people who pay for editing who certainly ought to have an article will have one, and the borderline ones won't. (They could get an article just as soon by asking someone here to make it for them, and perhaps we will find some way of communicating this, because in a sense it's the consequence of our own failure to have enough good editors interested in these topics to make the articles beforehand.) A difficulty is that as this discussion shows the standard is very variable, because quite apart from what different editors want to do, whether any one person is willing to do it varies--myself, there are days when I'm more patient than on others.

2. Apparently a typical contract for paid editing is that the article stay for a certain length of time. Perhaps we could re-creating the most worthy articles--but after a year or so. That way the person won't get paid, but those who clearly warrant articles will have them.

3. A partial solution will be to do what the German WP does, and allow organization accounts, under the name of the organization. Then at least some of it will be identified, and people can judge the reliability with the information of who did the editing.

4. Ultimately, it may become a choice between the principles of not accepting promotionalism and allowing anyone to edit. If it comes to that, I'd choose requiring identification. We would no longer have a fully free encyclopedia, but we'd at least have an encyclopedia.

in the meantime, AfD is the normal step when a speedy is declined. Of course, the decisions there can be almost as inconsistent as a random selection of admins at speedy. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Mfuzia

Hello DGG. You commented in the ANI thread which is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive807#Fairleigh Dickinson University and PublicMind. You indicated you didn't want to immediately block before the editor had a chance to respond. As it happens, he did give a response in the thread which seems to blow off the whole thing. In my opinion we are now in the territory for admin action under WP:PROMOTION and WP:Disruptive editing. If he continues on his present course, regular editors will have to spend time reverting his inappropriate changes. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

done. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for following up. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Quality of new articles

Hi David. This year's conference was small (and slightly disorganised), but because it was small it was an excellent opportunity to press home some of the issues concerning the quality of new articles - and controlling the quality of the patrollers and reviewers. It was possible to meet and have in-depth discussions with the enablers and developers who (I belive) are now finally aware that these issues should be a Foundation priority. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

well, I hope you post some details about who said what, so we can hold them accountable this time next year after they will have done nothing useful,

But actually, it's not their fault, but intrinsic to the current stage of WP: there are three simultaneous factors: 1/ the more people rely on WP, the higher is the demand for quality 2/ the more important WP gets, the harder is to to maintain quality, because everyone will want to use WP for promotion 3/ The longer it is since we started , the earliest people with the most enthusiasm will have moved on to other things and it will no longer be as exciting for those who join now. None of these three factors can be alleviated by anything the foundation does, or that we can do here at WP.

The hope, is that we will get a new generation of editors, who rather than trying to play with something new, are people who want to produce something as useful as they can make it, without the casual attitude the pioneers did about actual quality and freedom from promotionalism. if we can do that, deficiencies of infrastructure will not matter. Good people with the right approach to the right goal can master any system. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Well said, though it is not the quality of new articles that should mainly concern us, but that of old articles. Hope you are all having/had a good time. Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Kliegl Bros. Universal Electric Stage Lighting Co., Inc.

In re "Kliegl Brothers Universal Electric Stage lighting Co., Inc.". Thank you for you comments. I am aware of the article on "Klieglight" to which you refer. Reading it, in fact, was the impetus for writing my submitted article. "Klieglight" is incomplete and in many places inaccurate. Further, a responsible revision based on the title would provide technical data on a particular device. This may well be useful, but does not, except i the narrowest and fragmentary way, address the intent of my article, which is to outline the history of the iconic firm and its impact on the industry.

As for the scope of the article, I felt that it would be most useful to include material on the management and managers as, to a large extent, they were the firm. (For the recor, I am not related to the Kliegls, nor have I contacted one of them in over over 30 years. I was employed there from 1958 to 1969.)

Having said all this in explanation of intent, if portions of the article are unacceptable to Wikipedia for reasons of policy, I would appreciate specific comments that I may make appropriate revisions.

D.W. SaffordDwsafford (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me all the current material on the light would fit very well into your article, and could always be expanded later if someone wanted to do more on the technology--at present it isn't on any more technical a level than yours. I think the article should go under the light, which is overwhelmingly the better known term, which is a criterion we normally use. However, I'm not particularly concerned about it for the moment--articles are easy to move, and this should be discussed, not settled between the two of us. (As for titles, for your present title we would normally drop the Inc. from the end.)

With respect to the article contents itself, the main problem is the reliance upon archival sources. It is expected here that readers are able to check the material in an article, and we normally refer to only published material. (Archives are mentioned, buy putting in an external link or a footnote to the place they are located.). The catalogs are no problem, since I see they are all on the web at http://Www.klieglbros.com/catalogs/catalogs.htm. The personal communications are another matter. There are two ways to use them; best is for someone to publish a conventional book using them, that can then be cited; as an alternative, if they are in public archive and have been summarized properly in detail in a finding aid on he web or in print, that can be cited.

That's what our guidelines are. I didn't write them, but I must tell you what the consensus is about them. Remember also you don't own the article. If someone else should want to merge material and get consensus for it, they can do so. I always think the most important thing is article content and references, and I will be very glad to accept your article when it is properly cited. DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Kliegl Bros. Universal Electric Stage Lighting Co., Inc.

Thank you. I understand the issue, and will attempt to address it. My difficulty is that some of the material is presently privately held, so I must beg permission to post it on line. If this can be done, I will follow up with you.

Thank you for your help.

David Safford Dwsafford (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

This Barnstar is for showing the right path. Sourov0000 (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Del of interest

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth A. Bollen: btw, I am curious if Echo gave you a ping when I mentioned you there? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

yes, it did. But I hadn't checked Echo today, It's not as if it were some sufficiently visual obnoxious banner that you can't ignore it. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

K :) Btw, did you mean we have a category for ISI_Highly_Cited people? I can't find it - if we do can you add it to Bollen's article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

it's Category:ISI highly cited researchers I've added it. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Deletions in terms of G5 of four articles

Hi DGG, on 3 June 2013 JamesBWatson deleted 4 articles Thomas Pearson Stokoe, Johannes Schumacher, Hippeastrum cybister and Getaway (magazine) created by Androstachys, at that time a sockpuppet of mine. Since November 2011 I have been editing under my original name. Is it possible to restore these articles which I think are quite useful? cheers Paul venter (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

JamesBWatson is quite active today. If JamesBWatson deleted them, why don't you ask him? Why would you expect any other admin to unilaterally override him?—Kww(talk) 19:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Because from previous discussions I know that he is a staunch deletionist for punitive reasons - I also know that there are others who believe that G5 is nothing more than WP shooting itself in the foot. Paul venter (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the reason he came here is because for at least one of them, I had removed the speedy G5 tag, and JBW deleted it anyway. The situation with these is uncertain and there is no real solution, but as I understand G5 we may but do not have to speedy delete the article (I almost always do delete such articles, but a few are worth rescuing). In a situation like that, it is wrong for any one admin to insist on imposing his view across the board, after other make an opposite decision. The Wheel-warring definition makes this not wheel-warring, but I think it comes pretty close. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

If you are unwilling to restore the articles, is it possible to let me have copies of them? Thanks Paul venter (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know whether you saw the question above, so I am drawing your attention to it. Regards Paul venter (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Boundless (company) and Inkling

Hi - I need some help. I've written two articles about start up companies in the textbook market. They are young companies in a market that is being disrupted by technology and (to some extent) social change. In order to describe the companies and their impact, I felt it was necessary to describe their products. The technical nature of the products in this space is key to understanding why the market is rapidly changing. The Boundless article has been flagged as being an advertisement, and the Inkling article is flagged for speedy deletion. This feedback is important, but it is not specific enough to help me improve the articles. Can you help me with specific examples of advertising, promotion, or inappropriate links? Otherwise, I'm just guessing, and I could easily guess wrong.

One problem I face is that information about these companies comes from press sources that cover new technology and start ups, and there's definitely a "gee whiz" factor in those articles. I have tried to extract the facts from the enthusiasm, but for young companies there are not many alternative sources I can use. Also, information about growth of these companies is difficult to extract (as they are not public companies). For example, I can see how this sentence from the Boundless article sounds promotional (and may in fact need to be deleted): "In January 2013, the company claimed that students at over 2000 colleges in the United States were using Boundless textbooks." I included it because I had few sources to show the growth of the company. I was careful to note that this was a "claim," and attribute it. The information contained there is not complete, but without it, the article has less information about the scale or growth of the company. I debated almost every sentence in each of the two articles, and deleted more content than I kept.

Long story short, I appreciate any specific advice or examples. Seeing those advertisement & speedy deletion flags was a terrible feeling. I want to fix this and not have this experience again with future contributions to Wikipedia. Thanks - James Cage (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You are quite right-- I was too hasty. I did some editing on the Boundless article, mainly to decrease use of the company name, and removed the promotional tag; I removed the speedy tag from the Inkling article, and am about to review it to see if I can improve it. I did make a clear error, and in compensation I will try to do some positive work.

The problem is that WP is under siege from promotional editors for organizations, including , ironically, organizations aligned with open source material. There has developed a certain tendency to shoot first, and ask questions afterwards. Fortunately, we have some checks: admins rarely delete an article single handed except in the most outrageous cases, but list it for confirmation by another admin. In the 9 hours after I listed this one, no other admin deleted it, although many other articles were deleted. If it had continued a few hours longer, as seems likely, I would have noticed it myself and thought again. You will see above that other people sometimes decline my deletion nominations, and I decline some also from even the most reliable editors. We are all of us imperfect, and almost all of us know it.

Looking again at the Inkling article, I see what I had spotted: sentences of the pattern "While doing whatever, X saw the need for something" are very often characteristic of promotional paid editors, in particular a particular ring of low-paid editors that has inserted several thousand unworthy articles over the last year or two that we are slowly removing. Unfortunately, there is so much promotion not just in WP but the world, that people have come to naturally write in a promotional manner.

The problem of sourcing for new things is a difficult one. For new things that get hype, and that seems to include these two companies, there are usually sources; for the less spectacular one that appeal less to news media, it can be very difficult or impossible. The sourcing for Boundless is fully adequate by our usual standards. The sourcing for Inkling uses some acceptable sources, but also uses Businesswire, a blatant medium for promotion that prints essentially anything a PR agent sends it.

An article about a company , new or old,should describe its major products. There is a difference between describing and promoting. The way I word the difference is that an encyclopedic article tells the reader what the reader might want to know, while a promotional article tells what the company wants the reader to know. Obviously, to some extent a good article on a good product can have a secondary promotional effect, but it can often be told apart by such features as the freedom from adjectives.

What is really wanted for this type of article is full nonpartisan product reviews from trusted sources, and they should be forthcoming. If I can help you further, please ask me. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

No apology needed! I think that this is a very beneficial discussion to have, and only in the very broadest sense a "mistake." Clearly, the articles were written in a way that they could be mistaken for promotion - that's an issue and I'm glad you raised it. About mistakes - they do happen, but many people can't admit that. They become defensive and argumentative. You took exactly the opposite path. I'm impressed, and I sincerely appreciate it. And you are completely right about how people tend to write in a promotional manner. I do tend to do that, but I'm consciously trying to do better.

Regarding BusinessWire - I see your point. I have my notes from the article, which includes ~30 sources, including several from the time of the press release. If there's any information that is not already supported by other references, I will find a solid reference or delete the information. (done)

Regarding nonpartisan product reviews - I have a Google alert for these companies, but I'm not sure what constitutes a nonpartisan review or a trusted source. For example, I found this: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15424065.2012.762213?af=R&#.UhQT-ZK1Fc4. Is this fair game, or would citing this be considered primary research? The abstract fairly gushes with praise - can it be considered nonpartisan?

Regarding the plague of promotional content, how can I help with that? For example, during my research for these two articles, I came across the page for Kno, another company in this space. In its current form, it consists largely of text copied from the Kno web site, and includes sentences like "Each Kno eTextbook is packed with interactive features ..." The current text was apparently added by a Kno employee. I would be glad to work on the Kno page - how should I begin? I'm thinking of rolling the page back to the 16 June 2012 version, and then adding some more information from recent & reputable sources. Does that make sense? Also, to minimize debate, would it be good for an administrator to do the roll back or to mark the current version as promotional in nature?

Thanks again, amigo. I appreciate your attitude and what you're doing - all of this is new to me, but I fell like I'm part of something important here.James Cage (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

One more - Thank you for your help with Boundless. I would like to discuss one change, which I think is important to users, and to understanding why the company was sued. I put some discussion on the article's talk page - is this the right way to go? Thanks again James Cage (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

that review you mention is the sort of thing that is wanted-- even if it turns out the author has connections with the company, it's still a peer-reviewed journal. . I don't think I've seen an article on either company in the Chronicle of Higher Education yet, but I would expect to. I'll keep an eye out for others. For kno, some of the material in the history section is usable and updates the article in significant ways, so it is better toy edit to remove what isn't appropriate. Just as you say, doing drastic removal like that might run into some problems if done by a relatively new editor, so I've done the first round myself, and you can clean up further--probably some refs should be removed, and it would be helpful to have a good ref on no. of titles and major publishers. I blocked the promotional editor and dealt with an article of his on the company founder. (sometimes there is good reason for drastic action by an admin). If the ed. reappears under another name it will be obvious--let me know, or list it at WP:COIN, the conflict of interest noticeboard. It would not surprise me if similar attention will have to be paid to articles on other firms in this industry. I look forward to our further cooperation in this. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Opinion

Dear Sir. Long time no greetings! Thanks in advance for your view on this [16]Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

we have always accepted an entry in Gale's Contemporary Literary Criticism & their similar series as notability , even if they call a figure minor. The article is in need of some cutting, which I will do tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

THanks for the reply. I guess I'm missing something, because he's not coming up on Gale, and mentions in NYT, etc. are not substantial. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I will double check that, probably tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Sir, thank ye in advance.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

==AfC question

Hello again, The article has been, once again, rejected, this time by Zach Vega, admonishing me to "use footnotes". Otherwise he offered no useable advice. I doubt if he really read the article. At any rate, I have included the interview as a reference in the bio. This is the best source I have for this. Since you are the reviewer who has helped me the most, I sincerely hope you get the chance to review it again. If you do, you will see the other changes I made for clarification. I will now re-submit. All the best,Geoffrey Kline (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know

You have been (indirectly) mentioned here: Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Notability_is_defined_entirely_by_presence_of_reliable_sources.22.3F.3F.3F_-_Reply_to_Bearcat (I know you are busy - so I am pointing you to the middle of this very long text). XOttawahitech (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

actually, it's the whole general question I find of interest, & therefore I commented at considerable length myself DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Message from Dgoodman15

For some weird reason, the following message has twice been blocked by an edit filter as a "personal attack". I am posting it here on behalf of its would-be author who was thwarted by the edit filter. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi David,

Thank you for your thoughtful and purposeful work to improve the Wikipedia environment. As an end user, it is people like yourself that ensure the accuracy and reliability of this information resource. I am an administrator of "Schulich Leader Scholarships" and a 'newbie' Wikipedia page administrator. How can I learn the ropes to ensure our program can begin to document the lives touched by our scholarship in Canada and Israel? Please tell me how I can avoid deletion in the future, based on your previous assessment of our page: (05:06, 17 March 2013 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page Schulich Leader Scholarships (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria G11, G12. Source URL: http://schulichleaders.com/about-scholarship).

Best regards, Dgoodman15 (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Although the request in and of itself sounds reasonable, there are a couple of issues that probably should be addressed: The admitted COI, and a possible infringement of this section of the usernames policy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Dgoodman15, your entire purpose is wrong for WP. WP does not exist for you to document your program, and certainly not to document "the lives touched by our scholarships". It exists for the general public who may want information on your program. A page mostly copied from your own web site doesn't do that. Besides being a copyright violation,it says things in the way you want people to see them, and is almost always unsuitable even if you give permission.

You need to describe the program , without using superlatives or adjectives, demonstrating it' notability with references to major news sources not based or copies of your own PR, Don;t direct it to prospective schools or universities or students who may want to participate. Don't explain its benefits, just say what it is. Certainly don't give a list of the students who received awards--that information belongs if anywhere on your web page, & it's there complete with photographs of even the hundreds of finalists who did not get the award. And describe things properly: this is an undergraduate scholarship, not a postgraduate fellowship like the Rhodes.  ::Don't be extravagant in what you say: The degree to which it has made an impact on the world is largely prospective--this is just the second year of operation, and no lives can yet have been touched beyond having their first year university expenses paid. Remember, that to to the extent it does have an impact of the world, other people will write about it.

See our general guides to writing articles, WP:PLAIN and WP:FIRST; see also our list of the things we don't do here, WP:NOT, and our practical guide to conflict of interest, WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide DGG ( talk ) 20:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Also note, Dgoodman15, that you are not "a Wikipedia page administrator": there are no such beasts. Nobody "owns" or "administers" a particular article in Wikipedia (these are encyclopedia articles, by the way, not MySpace or LinkedIn "pages"; the difference is revelatory). Instead, all of us here are mutually pledged to improve existing articles in ways that follow our "Five Pillars", regardless of our own personal ties and self-interest. Some of us have been entrusted by the community as a whole, after a rather intensive grilling process, with the Mop-and-Bucket of administrator status; the regalia keeps us humble, reminding us that we are merely glorified janitors, with a few more keys and tools than other editors. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't fool yourself, Mike: there are certainly "Wikipedia page administrators". I can't imagine a large consumer company that wouldn't have someone in its marketing department that is specifically given the task of monitoring relevant Wikipedia pages. We don't recognise the role and make active efforts to ensure that such people don't actually gain control of the pages, but such people certainly exist.—Kww(talk) 22:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

But we refuse to legitimate or approve such behavior, and quash it where we can; we recognize no kingpins or capi di tuti capi, and fight to uproot them where we can. It has even been suggested that in some countries (not the U.S.) such actions by corporate tools may be illegal. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

OM, this is getting a little exaggerated. Here we have an editor coming here using what is apparently his true name, saying he represents an organization, and asking for help writing an acceptable page on it. The organization is clearly notable--there are substantial reliable news sources for it in Canada and Israel. He deserves to be permitted to make another try, now that things are clarified for him--indeed, people should be encouraged to do that. If he doesn't succeed, the organization is notable enough that I might write the page myself; if we had enough people interested in writing on higher education, it should have been done previously. He may or may not understand he doesn't control the page, but that is easy enough to explain. When I consider all the illegitimate & incompetent paid editing on non-notable or barely notable topics being submitter to WP by rings of puppets, hundreds of which we've been deleting each month, it's good to have someone coming in up front and saying what he's trying to do. We admins are here both to keep the improper stuff out of WP (as I did, in deleting the copyvio & promotional article submitted),and to use our experience in helping people do it right. I consider it my responsibility to "legitimate and approve"--and encourage and support anyone who comes to me honestly and asks for help, as long as they then don't go making problems (if they do , I deal with them--I block about 1% as often as you, but I certainly block when nothing else serves). What's illegal in some countries is doing it under false names. Our policies, of course, have the effect of making doing it illegitimately extremely easy, and it's absurd and counterproductive for us to make it harder being honest. The German WP accepts verified organization role accounts, to keep them under control. I think we should also. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

On a related issue, in my opinion probably the single silliest thing that many Wikipedia administrators do is to block an account because its username is the name of a company, telling the user that the username is the only reason for the block, and they are welcome to open an account that doesn't show the company connection. Whether we like it or not, there are, and always will be, accounts set up ion order to edit on behalf of businesses. How does it help to positively encourage businesses to run such accounts stealthily, hiding the nature of the account? If an account is persistently used in unacceptable ways, such as for posting spam, then it should not be allowed to edit under any username, and if it isn't being used in unacceptable ways, then far better that it openly declares its nature in its username than that it hide behind an apparently neutral name. Personally, I never block an account just because its username shows that it is a role account, in the absence of problematic editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. If you want to make the proposal, I'll support it. ~ 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk)

Notability of Richard K. Lublin Teaching Award

I am on the verge of AFDing it. I actually thing this kind of stuff may be encyclopedic, but is there a policy that backs it up? If not, an AFD discussion could result in one... what do you think? (If you reply here please ping me somehow). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

There is an inactive guideline at WP:Notability (awards) relevant guideline, unless one wants to go by the GNG: besides the in-house publicity each year, which is not independent, there will be news references for when it was established, but they too will almost always be in the college papers, and therefore also not be independent. There is very rarely anything else substantial.

As for arguments used successfully at AfD, we have almost always considered that an award which itself confers notability to be appropriate for an article, just as we consider an articles on a named professorship usually appropriate because it confers notability. I do not consider most in-college awards relevant to establishing notability, and in fact I usually remove them from articles as mere puffery. There could perhaps be exceptions, for major in-house awards from the very most famous universities, and conceivably Duke is one of them. (My own view would be to doubt it unless there is clear evidence of some sort)

Another argument used for awards is whether the majority of the awardees are notable, independent of the award--as judged in the usual way, either by having WP articles or being unquestionably qualified for them. A few of articles on the individuals have WP links; others have external links which show clear qualification under WP:PROF, either at the time of the award or later. Spot-checking, about half of the total probably would not meet WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

So do you think we should AFD this article or leave it be? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

== Question ==

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at UnicornTapestry's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

your comments at the Malafa AfD

I really appreciated your thoughtful reply. I think that rationale is similar to what bothers me about these poorly sourced construction/building articles i've been nominating for deletion; many of them rely on forum pages for their referencing, and if they really were notable that wouldn't be necessary. That's a higher standard, strictly speaking, than WP:N, and I'm getting my proverbial ass handed to me ratio-wise for that reason, i think. there are territorial issues coming out that are interesting as well, but that's another discussion.

One thing I am particularly interested in, though, is rooting out the bad articles and the bad actors. When an article is CSD'd as promotional, non-admins can no longer go back and look at its history to see who created it, or did the most work on it, cross reference dates and times, etc. And unfortunately, it sounds like the only way to get the ability to look at those sorts of things is to get the mop. personally, I really don't think I'm up for that sort of responsibility at the moment for a number of reasons, but i find it curious that there's no permission like e.g. rollbacker to allow folks to do this sort of research.

I have other thoughts on the nature of this endeavor, etc, but i'll spare you them for now. partly i wanted to say that i appreciated what you said, and partly i wanted to gripe, i guess. anyway, thanks. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 04:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

If this particular article is deleted, I will have no hard feelings. But I think we have lots of articles with input by COI editors, but in most cases, especially high profile articles, experienced NPOV editors are watching and reverting COI edits.

When you nominate for deletion articles about giant malls covered by reliable sources for decades, and stand your ground when reliable sources pour in, your credibility with active AfD participants is bound to suffer. But I will support your well-founded nominations any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

"in most cases, especially high profile articles, experienced NPOV editors are watching and reverting COI edits." -- I have not found this to be true except on the highest of high profile articles.

as an example: Gaylord Opryland Resort & Convention Center had what looks like pretty consistently good but not huge pageview numbers. 80+ per day would actually be pretty great for a non-WP advertising website. and until i took an axe to it it was composed almost entirely of unreferenced PR nonsense.

I do not recognize the "it's been here for a long time, therefore it's notable" excuse. that has put me at odds with other editors on a number of occasions. but i've also, in my short time here, seen enough to indicate to me that that really is not a valid justification for keeping an article. when an article is an orphan, or has limited inbound links and 0-5 views per day, for instance, that excuse cannot possible be used to justify the keeping of an article. the flip side of the coin that, as far as i can tell is never mentioned, is that if not saying anything is justification for keeping an article, then after a few years someone should have stumbled across it and, if it were truly notable, added some reliable sourcing that would help said article establish GNG.

But noone makes that argument, apparently.

-- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 08:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• My own comprehensive response to this is forthcoming. DGG ( talk ) 15:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC) (see below)

(talk page stalker) The level of activity from disinterested editors depends on how interesting the topic is to Wikipedia's editor demographic, not how important the subject is. However, larger companies may - in some cases - be more likely to be a topic of interest to more editors. OTOH, many consumers but few CEOs edit Wikipedia, so a consumer company like Symantec is more likely to be closely watched than an enterprise software company in the same revenue category. CorporateM (Talk) 02:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The followings is not a comprehensive response, but I wish to at least stay something: disagree that a re

1. That there is relatively low interest in a subject is not a grounds for deletion. That there is relatively little current interest is a particular poor grounds. This is an encyclopedia--a work of permanent record, recording whatever is notable, whether currently or in the past. Page view numbers are not the standard: if an article is used once a year by somebody it's presence is justified on the grounds of helping users: the relevant policy, one reflecting the technological basis that makes WP possible , is NOT PAPER.
2. That WP will reflect the interests of the contributors is inevitable. But as an encyclopedia it should try to compensate for the imbalance to some degree. I interpret NOT DIRECTORY as meaning that we do not include directory information in a non-selective indiscriminate manner: I think we should include directory information as a starting point for articles for organizations above a certain size, which may well vary by industry. The possibility of doing it in a systematic manner is greater than it used to be, because of the possibilities given by wikidata: it is now quite feasible to enter basic information about geographic and political entities and also people and organizations in a standardized form to be use by all WPs; while converting this information into text articles (or accepting infoboxes as article stubs) is not yet an accomplished procedure, but I think will be soon possible. We then need to decide what we want to use. But expanding such articles beyond stubs will depend on local interests: an example familiar to me is the very different amount of information given here for different universities.
3. I consider the GNG a very poor standard for inclusion; it is very indirectly related to any rational meaning of notability, especially because the availability of the limiteed range of sources we consider reliable for the purpose reflects in large part the limited searching interests and abilities of the editors here, and the differences between different subjects. When I first came here 7 years ago I thought it very clever--but I have since then realized that in practical application it is totally dependent upon the meaning of "substantial" and "independent", and we can make whatever arguments we like for these with equal validity. What is kept in any borderline case depends upon the skills of whoever is doing the argument and the prejudices of the immediate audience at the time, rather than upon anything rational. We would do much better having objective determinable standards.
4. The current challenge is to prevent the further corruption of the encyclopedia by promotionalism, and this will be much easier when we remove the existing. I am open to the possibility tat this can best be done by having a relatively stringent standard of notability in some areas. Though as I've just argued, we could build articles on very minor subjects by accepting directory content, we'd then still face the challenge of keeping promotionalism from getting added to them. An encyclopedia with variable coverage is merely an incomplete encyclopedia; an encyclopedia containing advertising is unreliable and worthless. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Paid Editing Q&A SignPost

Would be interested in your thoughts on this if you have time to give it a read. CorporateM (Talk) 20:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

this weekend. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Just checking in... CorporateM (Talk) 21:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Academic journal notability

Do you know of any precedent, guidelines, or essays that talk about standards for whether or not an academic journal is notable? My gut feeling is that it's analogous to WP:PROF, in that we don't actually need sources that talk about the journal, but, rather, we need sources that cite articles in the journal. That is, my assumption is that nobody actually talks about most journals, but that doesn't mean that the journals aren't notable. The question occurred because someone asked on Talk:Azerbaijan International if the journal is notable, and my feeling is that it is, though I doubt that, in a formal sense, it meets WP:GNG. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

See the essay Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). Though technically an essay, I think the standards there are the general consensus of everyone working regularly on the subject, and are followed in almost all decisions.

In summary, they say that the basic standard for notability of a journal is being indexed in major selective indexes. Which indexes they may be in a given instance is subject to discussion, but inclusion in WebofScience has always been considered adequate proof of notability, and usually Scopus has also. Difficulties come with 1/ new journals, which we usually do not include unless its obvious that they are going to be included, such as coming from a major society publisher all of whose existing journals are notable. 2/ journals which are in niche areas or from regions which are not adequately represented in such indexes. 3/ journals which are not strictly academic journals in the usual sense, but magazines, for which there is no consistently accepted criterion.

The GNG is in my opinion almost always irrelevant for this sort of subject. However, as in most other cases, if a journal should happen to meet the GNG, we would probably include it. If one wishes to make some sort of interpretation that aligns our usual practice with the GNG, one would say that the coverage by the major selective indexes is the sort of substantial coverage by RSs that applies.

That individual articles in a journal are or are not well cited does not determine the notability of the journal; however, it's a relevant factor. In any case, it has to be applied according to the standards of the field in question.

I shall look at the article in question. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, and I welcome your input on the specific article. It turns out that the "journal" isn't actually refereed, meaning it is somewhat questionable to even call it an "academic journal"; there's some info on the talk page from another editor about how it is indexed. And I agree that WP:GNG is a very bad too to use here; good to know that there's at least essay guidance suggesting some sort of standards. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

notability check

Hi David This artist’s entry needs to be rewritten, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_Jodoin, but as it has the notability flag, does someone other than myself need to review it? The artist is very well-known in critical art circles and in art school set, but not in the commercial sense. Her work illustrated the 2009-10 season brochure and eighteen posters for the Théâtre français at the National Arts Centre (NAC) in Ottawa where it was also exhibited. It won the award for documents at the APPLIED ARTS Design & Advertising Awards Annual 2009 (Toronto). She has had solo exhibits at these public galleries: Richmond Public Art Gallery, British Columbia, Musée d’art de Joliette, Québec, Ottawa School of Art, Ontario, National Center, for the Arts, Ottawa, Ontario, Maison des Arts de Laval, Laval, Québec, Connexion Gallery, organized by University of New Brunswick Art Centre, Fredericton, New-Brunswick,McClure Gallery, Visual Arts Centre, Montréal, travelled to Nanaimo Art Gallery, Nanaimo, B.C, and solo exhibits in Montreal and Calgary and group shows in Praque and New York with commercial galleries. She also has been a guest lecturer at art schools in Montreal as well as:Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, NY, Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax, Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, Philadelphia, Fontbonne University, St-??Louis, Missouri, Minneapolis College of Art & Design, Minnesota, North Park University, Chicago, University of Calgary, Alberta, Plattsburgh State University, Plattsburgh. There are also biographies of her on university sites and she mentioned in the entertainment section of several newspapers http://www.richmondreview.com/entertainment/159955635.html . There are also about ten favourable critical reviews from Canada's top art journalists. There is no hurry for a reply if you are on vacation. Thanks HeatherBlack (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want to rewrite it, there is no reason why you should not do so: anyone may and should improve an article, if they do it properly. If you do so, and thing you clearly meet the objections posed by a tag, you can remove it. If you remove an otability tag and someone wants to challenge it, the best way for them to do so is at AfD . The best information, as always, is not just exhibitions, but artwork in the permanent collection of major museums. If this cannot be shown, major reviews are desirable. A long list of appearances in group exhibitions in my opinion adds little: I would limit it to the few most important. I'm not sure being a guest lecturer means anything unless it is a full term appointment, not an occasional lecture. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks David, I think I have a better idea now. So if I look at the "notability for artists" criteria "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.", there is in fact the following hierarchy with the possibility of 4 or 5 being challenged as "open to interpretation":

• 1. critical attention and museum collections with a list of "notable works" at each institution
• 2. critical attention and government distinction/awards, art at expo pavillion or Governor General's Award or the Order of Canada
• 3. critical attention and peer recognition ie elected member of the Royal Canadian Academy of Art (RCA)
• 4. critical attention outside region, regional museums, plus newspaper bios, interviews
• 5. critical attention outside region, regional museums, plus minor awards

Is this a reasonable assessment? I'm finding that these take me a fair bit of time to do, so I appreciate your input. Thanks HeatherBlack (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• You're trying to be rational. But the only practical definition of notability is what the consensus at a particular time considers important enough for an article in WP: it's an entirely empirical standard, of whatever succeeds. Most of the rules are ambiguous & ill-defined, & we are in any case under no obligation to follow them. People at WP are not good at making fine distinctions or balancing multiple factors. Considering the various degrees or rationality and knowledgeability of people who engage in discussions, simple rules of thumb are better. It doesn't help to pass a formal standard if the net effect is not convincing. The goal is for a subject to be what I call "undoubtedly notable ", notable to the degree that no reasonable person who understands the field will challenge, or even better, obviously notable, that any one challenging it will not be taken seriously by anyone.

Having multiple works in major museums is in practice sufficient. Having these works get independent critical commentary is even better. For the sort of work that doesn't typically get into museums (such as street art or architecture), awards and commentary and official recognition are the equivalent.

The practical difficulties for the sort of articles you've been writing are 1/whether the museum is in fact a major collection, rather than the sort of civic collection which is not particularly discriminating with local artists 2/ whether the critical discussion is in fact substantial and independent. A museum's description of its own collection is not independent, unless the level of scholarship is universally recognized. Almost no commercial gallery's description of anything is reliable. Too many articles here depend on such descriptions, & it would be very easy to challenge them. (The classic example is the degree to which the association with Duveen might have cast doubt on Berenson's objectivity). 3/ (which I think you recognize)--no provincial or municipal level award is meaningful. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Got it! I'll go back and improve the ones that I've already written. Thanks again HeatherBlack (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

CCC - help!

Hi DGG (do you prefer David now?) -- The Copyright Clearance Center page is getting edits from three editors, one of whom is the CCC "PR guy" (Craig Sender). They have been identical edits, and I've reverted them because, among other things, they removed referenced content and replaced it with substantively different content -- while using the same reference. To be honest, I don't have time to go through all the changes (there are a lot) that these editors (or editor, because I think the others are socks or employees) are making to sort out the wheat from the promotional chaff. I've posted on Talk:Copyright Clearance Center with diffs to help illustrate, and would welcome another editor on this. I don't have a "Conflict of Interest", but I'm not CCC's biggest fan, to say the least, and I'd appreciate someone who presumably "feels" more neutrally about the organization to be part of the discussion, and work through editing conflicts. Although I strongly suspect socks, I'm not bumping this up to socks noticeboards or whatever, because, again, I'm swamped with the beginning of the semester, and I hope that this is all just a misunderstanding on the part of Craig Sender and/or his minions not really understanding that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotional website; that it follows referencing rules just like any other publication; that conflicts of interest should be disclosed; etc etc etc.

So help? Or help me find someone else who can be another experienced Wikipedian voice familiar with the field?

Thanks,

Laura / Lquilter (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I will take a look. . (BTW, Any name will do for me, but DGG is clearer to new WPedians who might be reading this and had not seen my user page which gives my real name) DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience

Hi DGG, thanks for moving this to its proper name. However, I think you may have deleted everything in the process because the article now redirects to itself. Could you (or any admin with the powers to do so) please restore the article's original content? -A1candidate (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

fixed; what happened is that two successive move requests got transmitted; due to slowness of computer connection. I thought the first had aborted. DGG ( talk ) 21:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I noticed your careful edit to WP:AUTISM

On the basis that you saw and edited the essay, may I invite you to consider joining this conversation at WER? Fiddle Faddle 10:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

There is some discussion about whether your cookies got deleted so I thought I should offer a replacement. :-) Spartaz Humbug! 20:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Living people categories

Hi DGG. I recently noticed an article on a living person without the category, and added it in this edit. What I wanted to ask you, as I know you spend a fair amount of time around new pages, is whether that would likely have been picked up eventually? I noticed the article hadn't yet been marked as patrolled (a little note in the bottom right-hand corner told me this). I'm asking because earlier this year I noticed another article on a living person that hadn't been put in the category, and I wondered how common this is? The note I left at the time was here, but I don't think anything happened as no-one replied there. Carcharoth (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

(1)The only sort of cleanup I do these days is to make sure references are present & visible, remove promotionalism. (including among many other things excess categories, links, or references), and organize articles if the structure is incoherent or inconsistent with basic standards.

(2)I do not meddle with categories, except I do add the BLP category in accepting an article from AfC. I am under the impression that uncategorized and undercategorized articles are tagged as such, and that they get categories added by those WPedians who regularly work with categories. I used to add them myself, but so many were changed by the specialists that it seems better letting them do it. Rather than trying to reform the system, I keep out of it, just as I do with infoboxes & many other aspects of the MOS. I learned in my first year here I could not do everything.

(3)But I strongly support efforts to rationalize WP metadata and subject access. I'm delighted at the success of Wikidata, and I see every prospect of it replacing much of the current infobox system and permitting basic article translation across WPs—together with category intersection, it could replace the current category system also, I think a sufficient number of excellent people are working on these problems.

(4)I think it important to concentrate of what I can do best that is most needed. When I look at article histories, I see dozens of cleanup edits by bots and individuals, but nobody ever has looked to see if the article is basically inappropriate or in need of fundamental improvement—or whether the editors need assistance or instruction. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for these thoughts (more than I expected!).

(1) Clean-up is something I've rarely done, as it can be very time-consuming. One of the things that makes me hesitant to do large amounts of work on some articles is the need to invariably check existing text against sources to see if there has been any blatant copy-pasting, or extensive close paraphrasing, or (worse) whether the text has been edited over time from an originally infringing version that wasn't spotted.

(2) and (3) Categories aren't that difficult. I used to do lots with them, but not so much now. The HotCat tool is invaluable. I agree with you about Wikidata, but I'm worried that many misunderstandings and arguments may arise, along with setbacks along the way. I guess we will see how it works out.

(4) I was looking at some of the articles recently created by Barney the barney barney (it was your note on his talk page that indirectly led me here). I'd like to help out and offer advice, but am not sure what to say. Some of the articles have been moved to titles beginning 'Sir'. This is very commonly done (I did it once), but article naming policy and guidelines discourage that. I'm torn on whether to bring up whether the articles are at the right title (in the long run, not terribly important, but relevant for future article creations), or whether to help expand the articles (much more useful in the long run. So I'm going to leave a note on his talk page pointing out both. Another thing I like to do is suggest to people that when they create biographical articles that they also create the talk page with {{WPBiography}} on it, but it can be difficult to suggest that if people don't see the point of doing it.

Carcharoth (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Khaldoun Almhanna AfD

So I don't think i disagree with this nomination, though i might refrain from entering a vote. I had a discussion with the user in question, and they appear to be working in good faith. I have removed their entry from my talk page but it is of course in the history, as an ip editor. (I felt like it gave enough identifying information that i would be uncomfortable with it, though i left it up to the user whether to ask for revdel). I also left an entry on their talk page.

I had suspected that there was a CoI here based on some searches i did, but apparently there was a mistaken-identity element there. I would encourage you to engage with this editor, as I am trying to, because i believe it's entirely possible that the series of mistakes they described is true, and that they simply need encouragement and direction to contribute more usefully.

Feel free to comment here or on my talk page, whichever is more convenient for you. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

If a person wishes to establish themselves as a good faith editor, it is best not to start out by writing articles about several borderline notable people from the same institution. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and we'll see how they do in the future. I'll be keeping an eye on them, and I imagine you may as well. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

User:UseTheCommandLine, Cantaloupe made a useful statement somewhere, that ethics does not = alignment. There are a lot of PR reps that are ethical, but that work for a non-notable company or someone with a bad reputation, etc. There is nothing we can do to "help" them, because they just want something different than us. They want to have an article on a topic we don't want to cover.

The same is true in my COI work. I only accept a small minority of new business inquiries that come in, because most of the time they just want something too different than what Wikipedia wants. There is a good example here of my approach to coaching a PR rep to voluntarily move on. Though, everyone has a different take on it. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 17:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I award the Special Barnstar to DGG for giving an exceptionally detailed answer on Talk:Cossack Research Center regards to titling. RainCity471report my errorslist of failures 18:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

In regards to David Horvitz's "game" of deleting his Wikipedia page)

Hello DGG,

I'd like to explain, if it's not already known, that Horvitz is a conceptual absurdist artist. Such projects in a way is a performance, a commentary on social media and technology. I see no harm in deleting the page for it becomes a form of performance art. I understand there is protocol but to uphold protocol for a situation that will generate no controversy seems silly. To delete would be trivial, so why not support its deletion? A game is meant to tease to entertain, but this is a new form of participatory art with a social commentary about the web and the accessibility to information. It in no way is to undermine WP as an insult or as a jest. This is art and to have the authorization to delete the page would complete the work. I hope you understand and find in favor of assisting in the proper deletion of David Horvitz's WP page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joebunkeo (talk • contribs) 19:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

his making the page may be part of the game as much as the deletion, but he is none the less notable. WP is not a place for original creative writing--or performing art either. I consider the entire process to be abusive of the encyclopedia. I consider it just like the professors who wish to conduct an experiment in social communications by having their students add deliberately false information to WP, to see if it gets removed. . It seems you got trapped in your own absurdist artistry: to get the article in, you had to show he;s notable, and now it's in, you find you can't reverse the process. Consider it part of your art work: it may not be what you planned, but performing art with other people as unknowing participant-subjects has that inherent aspect. DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

You, DGG, are incomparable. I have seen the range and depth of issues that you contend with, everything from Wikipedia-as-performance-art-NOT, to raining in the young lady who was using Wikipedia to write her autobiography, viz. What Wikipedia is not: Facebook!!! I agree, by the way, regarding those wretched professors who assign their students to vandalize Wikipedia as part of a university-level course. I read one such account, maybe THE canonical account, as I hope there are not multiple instances of professors doing such things, in the Chronicle of Higher Education the other day. You know Magnus. the extraordinary toolserver contributor by way of German Wikipedia, correct? He is of sufficient stature as a scientist that he got his own BLP article, although his countrymen on German Wikipedia deleted it as "not notable"; the temerity of them! It wasn't as though he wrote it himself. Anyway, I noticed on his talk page, that someone was writing some pseudo-science crud article about a ladies food and health book. Remember, I am a lady, so I can say these things. Magnus has a PhD in biochemistry. So, in this message, the WP editor wanted to use a copyrighted image about the ladies food book's author, from Flickr. She asked Magnus to make the account holder on Flickr re-license the image so that she (the WP editor) could use it in her article here on WP! Can you believe that? I mention this because I noticed your civil and courteous response to the young lady's edict to you, "not to mess up" her autobiographical page about her poems. Sigh! You need the "Patience of a Saint" Barnstar. Magnus probably does too. I am so happy I ran across you, and selected others, here on WP! I wish we could all meet one day, you and Andreas and the kindly man who owns pigs and lives in Thailand, and Snowy Susan (whom I've missed), and the good CPA From L.A. and my new acquaintance, the hillbilly, and a few others that I have since triangulated with on the Twitter. We would talk and tell stories of our Wikipedia adventures and laugh and... I will stop now. Again, thank you so much, for all that you do. I wish I could too. --FeralOink (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

PROF qualified main topic articles written as biographies

Hi DGG. I posted a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) to carry forward on a discussion at COIN that you posted in. I would appreciate receiving your comments at the PROF proposal. -- Jreferee (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your intentions, but I think you are making too much of this. To the extent it's a problem, it's a more general problem,and belongs elsewhere than in a notability guideline. I've commented in some detail. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

)

Hassan Hathout

Regarding your edits on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hassan Hathout - I'm minded to delete this under WP:CSD#A10 because we already have the article Hassan Hathout in main space. The two are somewhat different though, so please consider merging material from the AFC version into the main version. The AFC version is essentially an abandoned draft, so there is no sense in making improvements to it when a main space version exists. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) A10 only applies to pages in article space, not AfC's. I've added a second decline notice with the reason "exists." Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

We do not yet have an agreed way of handling these. Certainly material should be merged when sourced & relevant, but if it is merged, we need to keep the attribution. There are 3 cases which have b=to be distinguished: ::

One The draft,although declined was used for the article. Here I think the first step is to replace the text of the draft with a link to the article talk page, and then, to consider the article for possible deletion. (This is the case I usually see)

Two An article is taken into AfC space for improvement, and moved back again by copypaste, with or without improvements. Here the ideal step is a history merge, but I do not think it worth the trouble, unless there are important changes. (I almost never see this, but others report it)

Three. The two articles are independent.If there is content in the AfC worth the trouble, the contents should be merged. An exact history merge is the ideal way to deal with the merge, but again, I leave it to those who think it worth the trouble--I just redirect to the article talk p. with a suitable edit summary. (As a special case, the AfC is better, but I think of this as merging all the content without removing the prior history, and let the redirect & edit summary handle the attribution.) ! DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

A history merge is not practical if there are too many interleaving edits. Most admins are willing to do a clean merge where the histories don't overlap, but it's horribly time consuming and painful to deal with overlaps. It would be best simply to incorporate any improved content and sourcing from the AFC version into the main version, and explain this on the talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely about history merges. I am not one of the admins willing to do them. I did a few in the past, and I got them correct only about half the time, which means I was causing more problems than I was fixing. Doing it informally is best, whenever possible. In the early days of WP, I think there were an overabundance of people trying to do how complicated they could make it to do things with the wiki software, and how intricate an "explanation" they could write about the way to do . We have enough problems with real copyvios without worrying about merely technical ones within WP, as look as we do explain the attribution somewhere. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Notability

Hi DGG, You've nominated several of my articles for deletion or speedy deletion. I'm always careful to write neutrally and cite everything that I write. Obviously, I think the topics that I choose are notable, but you disagree with me on some points. I find the notability guidelines to be somewhat vague, so if a topic has enough information written about it in newspapers, magazines, or similar media to create a short article, then I go ahead and create one. Is there some other measure or guideline that you're using to determine notability? Are there a certain number of sources that you look for, or does a magazine need a certain amount of circulation? Guidance is appreciated. Thanks, HtownCat (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I rather expected to hear from you, and I've delayed nominating further articles until I could see your response. There are two separate but linked problems in articles about organizations, their leaders, and their products: notability and promotionalism:

The basic problem of promotionalism is that WP is addressed to the potential readers, giving them the information they might want to know upon seeing mention of a subject (for example, at the most basic, where is that company and what does the company do?, or which organization is that & what do they advocate? ). A promotional article is addressed to a prospective user or purchaser or supporter: This is what we do, and here is why it is valuable that you buy our products or support our endeavors. Encyclopedia articles are characterised by plain description, promotional ones by praise, or the sort of detail one would need only if one is considering a purchase. Promotional articles are intended to give a favorable image of the company, such as describing its ostensible social purposes or community contributions.

the basic problem of notability is deciding whether something is worth describing in an encyclopedia at all. It doesn't correspond to importance in the world, but to whether it should be included in WP--we can;t after all judge the world, but we must decide what we want to put in our encyclopedia. . In a few cases we go by a general decision--for example, the decision that all named populated places are appropriate for articles. In some others, we go by outside evaluation: for example, that a holder of a distinguished professorship at a major university is notable, or someone chosen to compete in the Olympics. In many cases, there are no such firm standards, and we go by the WP:GNG, the general notability guideline, which requires substantial coverage by multiple independent third party reliable sources. (some people say this is the only real standard, and everything else is just an assumption of what will meet it). the key words there are "substantial" , "independent" , and "reliable." A substantial source is more than a product listing, or a mention of an event taking place, but a significant discussion, such as a full product review. How substantial it must be is of course a matter of judgment, which is decided by consensus at WP:AFD. An independent source is one not derived from the subject--not the subject's web page of product literature, or what its principals write, or the press releases the put out. A reliable source is one using editorial judgment, rather than simply publishing press releases or gossip. Again, these terms are matters of judgement to be decided at consensus.

In all but extreme cases. nobody can predict accurately how consensus will go--I will nominate an article for deletion if I think there is a substantial probability that it will not be considered suitable, --but even after 7 dears of experience at it , sometimes I am wrong, either because I made a misjudgment or because the community wishes to interpret things differently. The community decides, and another administrator judges what the community has decided. Guidelines are necessarily subject to interpretation, and what really matters is how the community decides to interpret them--after all, we make our own rules collectively, and we can decide how we want to use them , and if we want to make exceptions. The best way of learning this is to observe afd discussions on similar topics, to see what arguments succeed, and what the practical standards are.

Some things are deleted immediately, by the concurrence of two administrators, rather than an AfD. One relevant example is blatant promotionalism, which is an article so much devoted to advertising or promoting something that there appears no way to fix it without rewriting. (As an admin, I have the technical ability to do it without concurrence, but I rarely use it unless there is some immediate hazard, such as libel or copyvio) . We also immediately remove articles on people or companies where it seems obvious on the face of it there is no possible indication of any importance or significance, --a much less demanding standard than actual notability,. Again, normally two admins will concur in this. If such deletions are seriously disputed in good faith, most admins will reverse the decision and send the article to AfD for a community opinion.

I said there was a connection between the two: A key reason we have a notability standard is that for most things that are not notable, there is nothing much to say except directory information or promotion. It is critical to WP that it not become a mere directory or a place for advertisement--we want to provide information that people can trust, so we require sources and objectivity and some degree of significance. There are many other places on the web for advertising, and google does very nicely as a web directory.

There are additionally some factors that can affect how people here view an article. We tend to regard an attempt to write simultaneous articles about a borderline notable company, its products, and its executives likely to be an attempt at promotion--it is much better to have one strong article. Also , it is considered possible that someone writing articles about a wide range of barely notable subjects may be doing so as a paid editor. We do not absolutely prohibit this (though many people here would like to do so), but we strongly discourage it, because it is extremely difficult to be objective about what one writes with such a strong conflict of interest. If by any chance you are such an editor, I can explain to you how best to deal with it so as to get the articles accepted--I am one of the relatively few admins here who are willing to assist paid editors who come here openly in good faith and are willing to learn our standards. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your detailed response. If I am not completely sure whether a subject is notable, should I submit it to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation?

I really thought I was careful about keeping promotionalism out of my articles. I would like to improve them, if given the chance. Is there a way that I can edit the deleted articles and then submit them for approval to be posted? I've read something about restoring articles to a userspace, but I'm not sure what the procedure is for that. I absolutely do want to contribute quality articles and nothing that other editors might view as promotional. Thanks for your help. HtownCat (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I will take a look next week. You should first check if there are good references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, because otherwise a rewrite is useless. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Anne Delong/G13 Rescue

Dear DGG: I know that you are checking the G13 nominations, and I have been too. I'm keeping track of which ones I've checked at the above page. If there is a batch that you have checked, can you please leave me a message about it on that page so that we don't duplicate out efforts? Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I've been using the dated categories, such as Category:AfC submissions by date/December 2011 You 're going alphabetically within a month, but I do not know from what list or category. For Dec 2011, I can complement you if I know, but after that we need to think about the most effective way. Ideally, more than one person should each screen; for example, I simply ignore popular music and athletics, DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

On the page above there is an infobox. I click on the large number and it takes me to the sorted list of G13 eligible submissions, sorted by month, oldest to newest, and within that listed alphabetically. YOu can tell what month the bot has got to by looking at the first one on the list. I've been checking them all, but I wouldn't necessarily save the same ones you do. If you tell me a month that you are working on, I would be glad to go through it and check the music and sports ones that you skipped (I'm a musician). —Anne Delong (talk) 01:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to be a good reason for different people to do it differently. But until we get a little ahead, we probably should work in the same sequence, so I will work in yours' . (At this point I have done Dec 1 and Dec 2, 2011.). What I mostly check is organizations and people and books and anything that seems so obvious that it ought to be covered. (I often find there is already an article--Ideally if its about the same we'd make links, but in practice I'm just skipping over them in order to stay ahead. If it's not the same, I accept, and then merge/redirect. I sometimes delete a few of the worst as I see them, but usually not--enough other people are doing that. If I can fix and accept in a few minutes i do it, especially if its the sort of academic article I specialize it. I'll let you know on your p. the ones I've looked at, in a separate column. DGG ( talk ) 08:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

CSD G13

I'm slowing down and taking a closer look. Here's an article I thought was worth a second look:

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gary Shapiro--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

yes, and he was on my long but unfortunately incomplete list of academic AfCs I intend to revisit whether or not they get deleted. That's what I became an admin for, and I said so at the time. It turns out in practice to be quite difficult getting people who publish local archeology to pass AfD, because the publications are normally very specialized and of very low circulation; but about half the ones that should succeed, do.

In the meantime, a number of other people have started deleting g13s, and since the bot keeps nominating to match, it's getting even harder to keep up. I have however never given up entirely in such situations, just specialized further and further the ones I work on. Among G13n nomination that I have either stopped or rescued after deletion in the last week that I have rescued are several university presidents, a number of MPs & government ministers, academics with distinguished professorships. Admins who are unwilling to read articles should not delete them. The bot is just a bot, and must be forgiven. But we shouldn't have admins who view their job as imitating a machine. I don't think the bot designer intended this. I have tried never to do an admin action I didn't think about, and even so I've by now deleted over 15,000 pages. If anyone became an admin because they want to delete things, there's enough genuine opportunity. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

(stalking) I regularly watch articles tagged with {{db-a7}} to see if I can rescue them, and I've started doing with the same with G13s. The link I use is here and it does them by oldest creation date first - for instance Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Justin Clements appears to be oldest, created on 13 April 2010. What's our general procedure for challenging G13s? Clements might or might not be notable enough - I can't tell without effectively taking ownership of the submission and looking for better sources.

On admins, since it came up on Yunshui's talk page yesterday, I have been prodded by the odd admin about going for an RfA at some point, and dealing with CSDs would be one area I think I can help with. I don't want to do it without a consensus from a couple of longstanding admins who know those areas well, though. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

DGG, how is the bot's process (which is much further locked down when compared to a editor) any different than an editor trolling the G13 eligible category and rapid fire nominating everything they can get their hands on? The bot does not subdivide itself and create a exponential increase in the number of instances that get spawned up (which you allude to in The Sorcerer's Apprentice). The bot only nominates enough articles in it's current run to get the category filled up to a percieved 50 nominations. If you don't want to perform any nominations you don't have to. The bot is perfectly happy to sit on a backlog of 50 or more nominations to the end of the universe. Would this be helpful? No, but the bot is coded to wait patiently. Obviously if the G13 backlog stays at 50 with the same nominations for over 5 days I as an editor will start asking pointed questions to the admin corps about the negligance to the community authorized CSD process. Hasteur (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur, there would be nothing wrong with the bot, if deleting admins would be careful. But they are often not, and since the bot makes deletion a single-handed process for one admin, when it should take two except in extreme circumstances, it adds to our problems. It's not your fault that other people aren't careful, but unfortunately the procedure you designed makes it easy for them to be reckless at a greater rate than they ordinarily would--as you say, an exponentially greater rate. But I think neither of us expected it would be used this way. I agree with you completely that the real problem is with admins acting with no more discretion than if they were bots themselves. Do you think you can fix that? I know I can't. Though I do try be persuasion, and perhaps I'm at least making people aware of the problems. Whether I will affect what anyone does is as usual another question, and all I really expect is to educate some of those new to our processes. DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

DGG, are there G13's deleted on topics that could eventually become articles? Certainly (although often, while the topic is notable, the article isn't worth rescuing anyway). But the reverse happens as well, people stopping the deletion of G13s incorrectly, e.g. this one and this one which I both had to delete as copyvios.

Similarly, you just stopped the deletion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities, which is a copyvio of [17]; you stopped the deletion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Institute of Business Administration, Karachi, but we have the much older Institute of Business Administration, Karachi already, and the AFC page was a copyvio of that page[18]. Admins shouldn't be here to delete whatever they can, but they shouldn't be here to keep whatever they can either, even if it are copyright violations. Copyvios (together with spam, BLP, ...) was one of the main reasons to get G13 going. (comment by User:Fram), 13:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

challenging G13s

1. 1. The way to challenge a G13 is to edit the AfC . It ought to be enough to merely remove the G13 notice, but I always make an edit to the text also. The way to prevent a G13 is to edit the AfC. I do not know if it is enough merely to make a comment.
2. Once something has been nominated for G13 it is likely to be deleted in a minute or two. The only effective way to prevent it is to immediately remove the G13 tag and save. After that, I almost always make an edit to the the text as well, Since essentially every AfC needs improvement (as does almost every article in WP, it's easy to find something to fix quickly.) Sometimes I also make a comment. If I think it's going to be a problem I add an {{underconstruction}} tag
3. If the G13 tag has not yet been placed on the AfC, it's enough to edit the text. (and sometimes I leave a comment.)
4. If I think the article needs checking, I first remove the tag and save, because otherwise it will be deleted. That does not necessarily mean I think it will make an article. That does not even necessarily mean I think it's free from copyvio. It's necessary to stop the process first, a( as with any speedy) because otherwise things go too quick before they can be adequately looked at.
5. What percentage I challenge depends on the particular mix of articles. Last evening there was a batch of 50 where I did not challenge a single one of them. Once in a while I might challenge as many as 5 or 6. .

further work on challenged G13s

1. If I think the saved AfC can be fixed up in less than 5 minutes, and its of any interest to me, I fix it and accept it. This is maybe 1 in 50. .
2. If it's in a field of great WP interest to me and I think it will clearly make an article and I think the subject is important, I will spend up to an hour fixing it. I do this only once a day or so.
3. Otherwise if it's of WP interest to me I place it on one of two lists I have, for work up as soon as possible , or deferred. Experience unfortunately shows I will not get to all of them. If it's of no particular WP interest to me, I just leave it, and let others do it.
4. Just as a guide. WP interest to me now means academics, universities, many writers, classical musicians, painters (and sometimes other visual artists) political figures or movements, major national organizations or companies, major executives or government figures, anything of historical interest, a good deal of science, and many general articles. No WP interest means sports or computer games or popular music or entertainment & popular celebrities generally, "WP interest" does not necessarily correspond to personal interest in either direction--it corresponds also to what I can effectually do, or effectually do more than many other people. As the pressure comes on, I narrow my criteria.
5. I try to get the article good enough to probably pass AfD. I do not attempt to get it past a stub, unless there's material for more already present. I do not concern myself with detailed format beyond the minimum for clarity, though I do pay attention to arrangement & removing duplication. I would like to fix references, but there's no time. I do verify or add the key references. I sometimes pay a little attention to style, if the English is really inadequate. I think that just being able to pass CSD is not sufficient, unless there's clear promise for rapid improvement by others.

Duplication and copyvio

1. I check for duplication. Unless it's obvious, I stop the G13 first, because this is actually the slowest part of the process-- it can be there under other words. I find a great deal lot of duplication.
2. Most of it is articles that were not accepted but copied into mainspace anyway.
3. About half the time the move is of content that should not have been accepted. If the moved content qualifies for speedy & isn't worth fixing, I place a deletion tag on it. If it's just of low quality but passes speedy, I tag it as needed.
4. About half the time the move is acceptable and seems to contain all the material. I do not know if there's a clear simple procedure, but I usually nominate for deletion as "speedy G6, already in WP". Until recently I would check the edit sequence and merge histories, but the time pressure is too great. Normally its the same person in any case, under whatever name, so any concern about attribution is merely technical. Those who are concerned can see the G6 and do the merge.
5. Sometimes the content does needs to be merged. Again, there's no clear simple procedure I know of. I accept the article under a variant name if necessary specifying it's for merging, and do the merge immediately, leaving the normal edit summaries for attribution.In a case like this attribution matters.
6. I check for copyvio, at least in the obvious places. Sometime I miss it. Yesterday there was particular RW concerns for me, so I deferred some of the checks . The Institute mentioned above was on my list to check today. I would not have missed it. Ditto the duplication of Karachi, except that -- as I mentioned above--I do not consider that a true copyright concern but rather just technical cleanup. (Of the other two listed above, ether of which I think I worked on, both are the sort of copyvio content that is blatently suspicious, and we have probably at least a few thousand similar in mainspace)
7. It is true I occasionally do miss actual copyvio. A proper check for copyvio can take a half-hour even if no print sources are involved. One of my concerns about the bot is that it leaves no time to do anything carefully. If I think there is likely to be copyvio on style grounds but I can't find it, I do what I do at NPP--I place a copypaste tag, which is designed for the purpose. (Or I stubbify the content; or, if it is of great interest to me, I even rewrite it. Deletion is the proper approach to copyvio--when we can't fix it, or it isn't worth fixing.)
8. I make mistakes. I would make fewer mistakes if I could work more slowly & carefully. I could work more carefully if more people wanted to fix articles, and if those admins doing deletion checked more carefully themselves. At the moment, neither of these seems practical.
9. One thing does seem practical to accomplish: fewer mistakes will be made if the initial AfC checking is of better quality. Most of the problems at G13 should have been dealt with earlier--and of course this includes copyvios. Our about-to-happen limitation of AfC review to those at least presumably qualified will help this greatly, once we have caught up with the backlog. Therefore I understand those who want to remove the backlog as soon as possible--but I think a year the shortest practical goal.

Misc.

1. I am keeping a record of the impt. articles I rescue, and intend to put it on WP. DGG ( talk ) 15:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio The 33 Strategies of War

A while back you removed a large section of material from this article as probable copyright violation. Since then, the same amterial has been added repeatedly by a variety of SPAs. Edward321 (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it again and explained on the talk p. I cannot protect my own edit, and I was the one who originally removed the material. Ask for other opinions, & if there is consensus it does not belong, get another admin who has not previously edited the article to enforce it. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

CSD G13

Although I'm not yet convinced it is a good use of time, I've taken a closer look at some of the G13. Some I thought were worth another look are:

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Larry Laverty
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Letsbuy.com
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Living Computer Museum
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Luis Herrera Cometta
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NEPAL SPOT EXCHANGE LIMITED
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Organizational Theory of Social Movements
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pediatric Psychology
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Psychology of Hoarding
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stonecap High School
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Game (Alyssa Reid song)
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Musicians Hall of Fame and Museum
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Theresa Wong
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tim Scott (Social Justice Activist)
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Valley Council of Governments
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Volcanoes Safaris
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Veronika Zikmundová
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elings Park International Raceway

I see the G13 nomination process will be on hiatus for a month. I think I see processes being put in place so it is easier to look at those about to be nominated, which seems easier than trying to look at them after deletion.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, certainly but I would also be really really glad if there were a quick way for admins to see the content after deletion, for AfCs and for other things also. And it would help all aspects of AfC review to have some way of roughly classifying AfCs by subject.

Incidentally, just putting on the postpone template does not always work. I find that to actually stop the deletion I have to edit the AfC to remove the speedy tag, and then also edit the text of the article to at least some extent, I'll look at the ones you spotted tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I worked on the assumption that I had to remove the csd tag, although I see I missed one with Elings Park.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent Wiki-PR scandal

I'm sure by now you've seen this. A lot of editors I've talked to are saying they want WMF to pursue legal action against them. I wonder if that is in part because of my influence, or if it's always been on everybody's mind. But I brought it up here. It seems like a stretch to me that WMF would actually get involved, but I'd be interested in your comments. CorporateM (Talk) 14:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

it would be foolish for the WP foundation to pursue legal action against anyone, on the basis of their contributions. This opens a door to all sorts of legal interventions to control our content, some no doubt based on motives in total opposition to out basic principles. This is a user contributed encyclopedia, and the users control the content, not the foundation. The WMF should never interfere with that. I consider it perfectly plausible that the underlying puppetmaster is of the honest opinion that WP ought to cover such institutions, and accept content prepared on their behalf, and that consequently writing the articles is a reasonable commercial pursuit, and our attempts to keep them out show our narrow-mindedness and intolerance, and that they are therefore justified in circumventing our policies. Our most essential defense is to maintain standards, and this can only be done by attention to articles that are created, no matter who makes them. but if we ourselves created articles on notable commercial enterprises, there would be less scope for these activities.

I am just as concerned with articles about non-commercial organizations, and advocacy of all sorts; they are even more of a threat, because they often get even less attention. In my own subject, most of the university articles here are indistinguishable from press releases, and not very good, transparently self-serving press releases at that. There is rarely one that adds much to the information available from the web site.

But there may come a time, as I have in the past suggested, and as I now see also suggested by others, where we may have to choose between the principle of anonymity and the principal of NPOV. There can be encyclopedias written with or without identification of the actual writers, but without NPOV there can be no encyclopedia at all. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Four profs

When you have time, could you give me an opinion on these four?

• Fred Botting
• Simon Morgan Wortham
• John Mullarkey
• Scott Wilson (Professor in Media and Cultural Studies)

They are all recent creations by a new user who has posted a number of articles about the London Graduate School, an "interdisciplinary research organisation in contemporary critical theory", part of Kingston University, and its staff. Two lecturers have been speedied A7. I have advised her to study WP:PROF before writing any more.

Even better, if you can give me advice on how to assess this kind of article, I might have less need to bother you in future... Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The easiest way to assess anyone in a humanities subject is to look for possible notability under WP:NAUTHOR, searching for the individual in WorldCat. In those fields where academic importance is built around book publication, this is usually a simpler criterion to evaluate than WP:PROF--in my personal opinion a little too inclusively in some cases. For example Bolting has published several books each held in hundreds of libraries; as there are therefore undoubtedly reviews, he is notable. The article is however written in ignorance of our standards, putting emphasis on listing the courses he is teaching. It needs to be rewritten. For the others, similarly, though the books are not quite as widely held. I will give some advice to the editor involved, and look at the deleted articles. I created a redirect from the correct name , London Graduate School, without the title, and I will also deal with the AfC.

Unless we ourselves write articles properly on notable authors and scholars, we leave an unfortunate opening for those likely to be affiliated with the institutions to do so improperly. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Ambassador in Boston?

David: Terry Epperson here. As you recall, you visited my "Anthropology of Cyberspace" class at The College of New Jersey (TCNJ) during the fall, 2011 semester. I am now living in Boston and plan to offer a similar course this spring. Could you please connect me with an Ambassador who can do classroom visits in Boston. I don't know how to email you directly. Thanks! user:twepperson —Preceding undated comment added 15:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Anthony W. Ulwick

Hi DGG, I noticed you placed a news release flag on Anthony W. Ulwick. Can you clarify so that I can fix it? Is it written in a news style or coming off as promotional in some way? Also, I was unaware that patents shouldn't be included, so thanks for pointing that out. HtownCat (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The sources are entirely self-written or promotional: Ref 1 is a self published source; Ref 2. is his own article. Ref.3 does not seem to refer to him. Ref 4 is his own book. Ref. 5 is his own company's website. I doubt ref 6 is a reliable source, but the link is dead. Ref. 7 is self-published praise. Ref 8 is his own blurb at Amazon. His actual demonstrable notability is probably as an author, as his books are fairly widely held by libraries. This needs to be shown properly, by including references to substantial published reviews of his books in reliable sources. To clarify, patents are relevant--if exploited to a notable extent, not just if granted. They are granted for something new that might be useful, not for something important. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	The mensch barnstar. For listening, although my idea is doomed I know. Fondest regards to you and yours. Irondome (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

== update ==

With regard to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emad Rahim, did you see "Is wikipedia for sale"?

Apparently Emad Rahim paid a PR firm to manage his wikipedia article.

Rahim paid Wiki-PR $1,500 over two installments to create a page for him on the site. “After reviewing all of my information [Wiki-PR] assured me that my profile would get published on Wikipedia without any problems. We wrote a short bio, included quotes and links to credible sources, publications, employment history, and a picture.” At first he was happy with the result, but within two weeks the page had come to the attention of other Wikipedia editors. Email exchanges show the extent to which Wiki-PR spun and obfuscated the issue. On July 17, Rahim emailed the firm after noticing that his page had been marked for deletion for not being notable enough. CEO Michael French replied, “You're covered by Page Management. Not to worry. Thank you for your patience with the encyclopedic process.”

So, how mch does being outed as someone who paid to selfishly subvert the wikipedia add to his notability? Geo Swan (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Can one become notable for not being notable? Interesting concept... Peridon (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

we have had some AfD discussions on people & organizations whose notability arises in large part because of either criticism or attacks they have made upon WP; results vary--my own view has consistently been that as part of NPOV we should always in case of doubt be careful not to remove information about those who don't like us.

But in this particular instance, this is a person who has without malice towards us made the error of hiring a firm whose practice it is to evade the principles of WP; This would fall under BLP policy. This is minor negative information, not relating to whatever actual notability he might have. Even if he were to have an article, I would not include this material--it's a basic BLP policy that we do not include the misdemeanors of basically private individuals, let alone use them as the basis for notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Okay. Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Contesting speedy deletion of MAIC (disambiguation)

Could you please read section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, which you cited as the criterion for speedy deletion of my new page on MAIC (disambiguation)? It explicitly exempts disambiguation pages from the standard rules for notability, encouraging disambiguation pages for something as minor as variations in spelling.

After creating that article, I left a note on Talk:Mergers and acquisitions#What's MAIC?, asking someone who knew what MAIC meant in the context of that article to explain it there and add that to the disambiguation page I just had created.

For more detail, please see the comments I appended to your notes on my User talk:DavidMCEddy#Speedy deletion nomination of MAIC (disambiguation).

I very much appreciate your many contributions to Wikipedia, and I hope that you will ultimately agree that my creation of that page did NOT violate any rules and restore it speedily. Thanks. DavidMCEddy (talk) 06:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Disam pagers disam between articles. Under the format of a disam page, this actually was a page consisting only of external links. Looking at the discussion, and at Center for International Stabilization and Recovery, mentioned there, I think there is another way of handling it that gives at least one WP link, and I will do it. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the redirect for Maic. Do you still plan to restore the MAIC disambiguation page?

To reduce the incidence of future problems like this it would help if the Wikipedia Template:Disambiguation described clearly in the intro to that article the criteria for an acceptable disambiguation page, explicitly mentioning speedy deletion.

I skimmed that article plus Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation pages before creating the MAIC (disambiguation) page. Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation pages says, "A single disambiguation page may be used to disambiguate a number of similar terms." Examples include, "Terms which differ only in capitalization, punctuation and diacritic marks. ... Corresponding singular, plural and possessive forms, or compound words. ... Variant spellings. ... Variant forms of names. ... Terms which differ by the presence or absence of an article." I perceive a disconnect between G6 and this article: It would help reduce conflict over speedy deletions if either G6 or Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation pages were changed. I favor changing G6, because I find great value in disambiguation pages, even when they do not disambiguation other Wikipedia pages. I would not have taken the time to create MAIC (disambiguation) otherwise.

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion says, "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." Reason A3, which you cited, clearly provides an exception for disambiguation pages. Wikipedia exists because volunteers contribute content. Most do so to help others. Speedy deletion is an appropriate response to contributions that are either silly or sinister. MAIC (disambiguation) was neither.

Reason G6, mentioned by PamD, discusses "Uncontroversial maintenance, including ... Deleting unnecessary disambiguation pages, such as those listing only one or zero links to existing Wikipedia articles." We have an honest disagreement about what makes a disambiguation page "unnecessary". I created that page for two reasons. First, I tried to use it to help explain to contributors to the article on Mergers and acquisitions why MAIC should be defined. That may not have been the best way to raise that issue. However, in the past when people have used undefined acronyms, I have sometimes responded with a list of alternatives, and ask which one they are using, if any. I felt that helped get compliance with my request for a definition. Second, I've found disambiguation pages quite useful in the past, and I thought others might find a page on MAIC useful also. Until PamD mentioned it, I was completely unaware of G6 threatening speedy deletion of disambiguation pages with fewer that 2 links to other Wikipedia articles. As I mentioned above, G6 seems to contradict the spirit and intent of Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation pages. I think it would help others like me if some effort were made to reduce this apparent contradiction. I'm not an administrator, and I don't feel qualified to edit those pages. DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Corporate user names

Hi. I read your remark (at the Deletion review) "I think we should change the rules here to match the German WP, and accept openly avowed & authenticated corporate user names" and I couldn't agree more. The ban on corporate usernames does not make sense and doesn't make the wiki better in any way. I'm considering writing a proposal to get that rule scrapped but have no idea how to do that. Where should I publish/list the proposal, for a start? If you could point me in the right direction or have other help to offer, I would greatly appreciate it. Cheers, Yintan  09:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Try Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), but first see how other proposals there are discussed. I'll keep an eye on it. I would suggest it might be a better idea to propose it not as something that will solve all our problems in this area, but something which will be a modest improvement over the present, The clearer and simpler we make it for people with COI to do right, the more likely they are to do not. It wont go from 10% to 90%. but perhaps from 10% to 20%. It eliminates some overhead, but if we follow the German model, requires some sort of evidence they are the firm in question., which adds overhead. DGG ( talk ) 15:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see how things go there first. I'm not so much in favour of requesting proof that an editor belongs to a company, I just don't see how banning corporate usernames can do any good. At least with promotional/corporate usernames you know who is editing. Yintan  20:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The point of requiring proof is so you know who is editing, rather than whom the editor says is editing. We have a rule that a individual whose true name is that of a well-known identifiable person, can request special permission to use it, after verification. See WP:REALNAME. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Your comment

at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria was excellent and what we obviously don't want is poor reviews being pushed on to NPP where the reviewing isn't any bettar or faster. Based on comments from Foudation staff (whether posting from their WMF account or not), software help is unlikely to be forthcoming from MedWiki and I think our volunteer programmers at AfC are quite capable of finding a local solution of some kind or another. It just needs the community to decide on a simple set of of permission criteria instead of attempting to re-debate the whole thing, or completely missing the objective of the discussion proposal. I think, based on the discussion, most of which is objective, I'll start a straw poll there on some of the realistic suggestions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Anthropological Literature and Anthropological Index Online

Dear David, are these two databases selective enough to confer notability according to WP:NJournals? Thanks for your advice. --Randykitty (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Anthropology is a difficult subject this way, because much of the literature appears in very specific journals devoted to a particular region, published by local museums or universities. SSCI covers it only very scantily. My own view is that we should cover every journal important enough that it is likely to be used as a key source for a WP article--in other words, the principal journal in each possible specialty. (Some people here think we ought to write an article on every journal or other source used in any WP article, to help readers evaluate it, but even if we ought to do this, I think that this is a considerably lower priority.)

comparing these two indexes, AIO reflects a European emphasis, AL an American. The two sources complement each other, and are available together from Ebsco as Anthropology Plus; I will add this information to the articles. Including everything in either is a little more on the complete side than the selective. I suggest the purely empirical solution of including all journals that are listed in both, which I think will prove to be about two hundred. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Books for Keeps

Is Books for Keeps, a British children's books review magazine a reliable source? I am reviewing author David Orme's notability and several of his books seem to have been reviewed on the site, but I am unsure as to whether that is significant (or if the source is paid advertsising). Also, if it is a reliable source it might be good to have a Wikipedia article on the magazine itself. Thanks for any assistance you or your page watchers can provide. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

First, the easy parts: The quote from Pullman at the top of the web page would seem to justify an article. And as general guidance for notability this issue at the bottom lists several awards, any one of which is sufficient for notability, though I am not sure about just being on the shortlists for them.

It is very difficult to judge the notability of books from a different culture, and, especially for children's literature, England counts as almost another culture. Especially for younger children the books tend to be oriented towards familiar backgrounds, and consequently fewer American libraries or reviewers (or children or parents) are likely to be interested, WorldCat unfortunately, lists mainly US libraries; there is no adequate equivalent I know of with the same very wide reach into UK public libraries. Nor am I familiar with UK review media for children--I was examining this for the first time.

What I found is that the reviewers are as well selected as in the familiar US; and the reviews have a consistency that shows careful editing. On checking books for the middle school levels up, I could clearly determine that about 2/3 of the titles were certainly notable on US criteria alone, and given the differences, I think almost all of them would be notable by UK criteria & sources. For the books for younger children it is much more difficult to judge. At the primary school level, about 1/3 were clearly notable onUS based criteria; I cannot tell about the UK, but in any case I try to avoid judging notability of books at that level unless there are obvious prizes.

As I've previously said, I think the NBOOKS criterion or the GNG somewhat too broad--it removes only the junk, since two reviews is unrealistically low for many areas. I use mainly supplementary and indirect criteria. I've mentioned library holdings--it depends of field, but for current children's literature any US book with over two or three hundred Worldcat holding is probably significant. (As one goes back in time, the criterion stops working, because few public or school libraries keep older children's books) I look to see whether the book is known internationally--in this field, whether it has both a US and UK publisher, and in all areas, if the book is translated into other languages, especially if into more than one other language. I look at the reputation of the publisher (but I do not know all reputable UK specialist publishers) And I rely a great deal on the same criterion all readers use in Real Life, coming second only to recommendations from their friends: if the author has published other successful books also. This is especially true in this field, where most well-known books are published in series or at least with a common theme or title or style.

When in doubt, there is a simple solution: to write an article on the author. including the information and reviews at hand. And then make a redirect, so someone who looks here will find at least something. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for looking into the issue and for your detailed response to my query. Much appreciated. I have started an article on the website and updated my comment in the deletion discussion accordingly. Take care and enjoy life. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I created an article on Brian Alderson (children's book critic) and another on the Children's Books History Society. I'm not completely satisfied with the Alderson article title, maybe Brian Alderson (children's book reviewer) would be better? Not sure. But anyway, it's a start. Thanks again for your help. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I see it's now at Brian Anderson (writer), which is certainly preferable. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

John C. Norcross

You tagged John C. Norcross for deletion as a copyvio. The copy was a paraphrase of a list of facts, which as you no doubt know has reduced protection. I paraphrased further and declined the speedy. Please see my comment on Talk:John C. Norcross if you are interested. DES ^(talk) 21:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

of course, one of the options to deletion is rewriting. Whether I rewrite myself to avoid deletion depends on many factors and I certainly am very satisfied when others do it also. I think needs further work, and I may get to it. There are no firm rules whether a paraphrase is sufficiently close for G12. Almost all WP copyvios are essentially lists of facts: both the arrangement & wording of the facts is relevant--& it is also true that in some formulaic articles like academic bios there are not many ways of expressing things. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion philosophy

I'd like to follow up on your comment: You said:

I will generally restore all articles on full professors at major universities,

I have a list of 699 people. It may not be your area of interest, but it is to me. Every single person on the list has won a medal at an international basketball tournament. These aren't small affairs, it includes the Olympics and some other events, the most notable international events in the sport. My current task is to do a writeup on their participation at the event, and add it to their biography.

Less than half have biographies. It pains me every time I search for one and don't get a hit.

I think such a player is at least as notable as a full professor. I think almost every one of them (some rare exceptions) deserves an article. It wouldn't be hard to come up with a template that creates a bare biography, including Reliable Sources. I won't do this because I think it is a bad idea, but if I did generate, say 400 biographies, and someone deleted them because they weren't adequately referenced, would you restore them all and either fix them yourself, or expect someone else to do it?

I'm not arguing that a full professor at a major university shouldn't have an article. I am arguing that when someone creates what is barely more than a copy of their bio, and expects us to fix it for them, we shouldn't feel obligated to do so.

We are all volunteers. We all ought to have the right to decide what content work we want to do. I have roughly 400 bios I'd like to write sometime, and I don't intend to spend time on a full professor, no matter how worthy, if I'm not personally interested. I hope I am wrong, but I am getting the impression that you think the fact that an editor identified a likely notable subject, and did little else, that this act imposes an obligation on the community to create the article for them. Again, I hope I'm wrong, but I don't know how else to interpret your reaction. Please let me know why my interpretation is wrong.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The basic facts of their career as derived from the biography is a good start for an article. I would much rather go systematically, and make the thousands of new articles needed but even if I did, it would still basically consist of the basic facts of their career, as derived from the official biographies, and the list or summary of the accomplishments for which they received recognition. This is enough for a valid stub. It provides the basic information, and then we can eventually go further. Most WP articles grow by starting with that sort of stub.

Most of what is submitted does not fit into a standard WP format; if it is essentially their bare CV, it needs rewriting into sentences, and the necessary material added; if it is from a PR office, it needs trimming and rewriting and adding the material PR people omit but which are the facts that show notability; if it is from a naïve student, it needs rewriting and expansion. It could be argued that I am wrong in my strategy--that I would accomplish more by letting these go, and working from the most notable in the various specialties. If someone wants to do that, I would strongly encourage them to do it. But I do consider that when someone identifies a notable subject and writes an article sketch, we have collectively the obligation to make articles out of them. We are here to make an encyclopedia, and it is due to our lack of people in most subject fields, that we have not made the articles already before they are asked for. And it is more specifically our failure to adequate guide the people who submit inadequate articles that they languish in AfC. Nobody need do this individually, but we should do it collectively. When I screen G13s, I postpone the deletion of anything in any such that I think might make an article that passes AfD . I was unable to get consensus that everyone should do this, as most were too intimidated by the number of articles without considering the effects of collective work.

Nobody needs to do it for everything--nobody could do that competently. I am perfectly willing to take on the burden of completing as many as I possibly can. I can do this the more easily if I can screen them as popups before they get deleted.. If they have been deleted first, I need to take the steps necessary to view each one, before I can select the few worth working on--as I work on about 2 out of 50, it take twenty times longer.

I do not ask that you do this rewriting, since indeed everyone can select what they want to work on--I do hope that you not hinder my ability to do myself the ones I want to work on. It's a request; you're not required to by any guideline. (It's not just academics, by the way--I also rescue people who on the face of it who meet the basic criteria for politicians and writers.)

At present, I have a list of about 300 identified afc drafts to rescue, and I will rescue them over the next year or two even if they get deleted first. But I have caught only about 1/3 of the ones that I should do, and I want to catch the others. I know I will never catch many of them, because there is no practical way to quickly view all deletions. To the extent identifying them is uncomplicated, I can do more rewriting. I have already rescued about 100 articles from AfC that I think adequate, and removed deletion tags or not deleted an equal number that need further work. And for about 50 that I checked, I identify mainspace articles that were written or moved after the draft had been rejected that should not be in mainspace, and I try to get them deleted. Careful checking works both ways. Anyone who wants, can see what I delete and do not delete from my log and contributions. Probably most people trying to do something this with almost no assistance would have given up long ago, but i know how much positive work can be accomplished if even a single person steadily works at it. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Lists of customers are "advertising"?

DGG, I have issued a bit of a challenge for you here. If Wikipedia is not intended for articles to list customers of businesses, then there are hundreds of other problems for you to address. I suspect you're applying a different standard to Comcast Business because it arose from the Reward Board. Have you checked Silgan Holdings, which also appeared on the Reward Board at the same time as Comcast Business? - I'm not that crazy (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Silgan gave a mention of two firms, and put it into context, rather than giving a list. And I am not happy with the last paragraph of that article, which I think trivial criticism, But you are correct that many existing articles in WP are far more unsatisfactory than the one you wrote. ( What I think your challenge is, is to find a way of saying something worth saying in an encyclopedia about the firm that would not fit into the overall article. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, I wrote much of it, including the section that was gutted, and I'm not even sure that I'm not that crazy worked on the article. I will look at the above example (Silgan Holdings) to see where I went wrong. :( Westin D^odger 15:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not that lists of customers are advertising per se but when it is a list sourced to press releases (which are self published) then it is impossible for the article to be neutral as the customer list is WP:UNDUE. SmartSE (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Rick DePiro

The search terms on the reward board are actually excellent leads for promo articles that need cleanup. I've been working down the list. For this article, a "Media appearances" section is promotional and most of the article is unsourced. It could be cut in half. I noticed there is an active disclosed PR rep on Talk from A&R (which I use to work for about 10 years ago) and I wish to avoid the usual accusations of sniping other COIs. That narrative is apparently convincing to at least some editors. I'll keep working down the search results, but thought you may have an interest in cleaning up this one. CorporateM (Talk) 13:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not comfortable working in that field, because I know so little I cannot tell if what I cut out is unimportant, or whether when I rewrite, I have rewritten correctly, But I too have been looking at articles previously advertised there. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

What about Metaswitch? Weird, they seem to be following the Bright Line, but nobody fulfilling their requests have bothered to clean up the dedicated sections to awards, executives, etc. I noticed a disclosed engaged participant, so figured I would skip it for the same reason. CorporateM (Talk) 21:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the Bright Liner is the same as with AfC or NPP -- it works well only if the reviews are competent and careful. So far, most of the people doing Bright Line work have been fairly good, which is reasonable as they are mostly people with a great skepticism about the quality of most PR work. ASs the method becomes more widely used, this is unlikely to continue. You are quite right that in general you shouldn't review the work of your competitors. I'll deal with this one. DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. If I help a PR rep, I am accused of whitewashing it for my PR colleagues. If I do not make the edits they want, I am sniping the competition. OTOH, company articles are my primary area of editing and it is difficult to avoid COIs in that area. Editors sometimes ask me to help other COIs, but I think in the future I will just abstain when asked. Anyways, I have cleaned up a lot of the promotion in the articles that show up in those searches. I was aggressive about sending promotional, unsourced articles to AfD per NOT, V, and OR and expect some editors to disagree with it. A lot of client lists I left up when they seemed potentially informative. I may check back in a week or so to see if the promotion was restored. CorporateM (Talk) 23:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we need to discuss client lists. The sort of client lists that merit removal are the ones from , say, a paper clip company, listing all the large corporations that use their paper clips, which is about the equivalent of an article on the WSJ listing everyone who quotes it. In the other direction, if a company is the exclusive supplier of a major product to the largest user of such product in the world, we should include it. Where in the middle to draw the line is not all that obvious. One thing that certainly helps is to have it as a sentence or two, not a bulleted list. (If I could, I'd outlaw bulleted lists from articles the same way we outlaw writing in FULL CAPS.) For comparison, the practice I have with scientists is to list not all of their cited work, or none of it, but the 5 papers that have had the most impact. (I picked the number 5 to match the number asked for by many grant and promotion committees, the ones who rate quality more important that bulk.) DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The article I wrote on Waggener Edstrom comes to mind, because they are arguably best known for their work with Microsoft and that client is the focus of much of the article. When it comes to lists in general, I sometimes give my clients a rule of ten, because the GA reviewer at RTI International asked me to list all 11 divisions. However, for products my rules is that we cannot name them individually if there is more than 3-5.

I imagine the criteria is the same we use for everything; it should be sourced to strong secondary sources, informative and in good taste, but all that depends on the circumstance and the sources. They should not be listed arbitrarily, but to communicate something to the reader such as providing an example of the market they target, identifying the adopters of something bleeding edge, or identifying where a large portion of their revenues comes from. CorporateM (Talk) 01:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated topic, do you think I could solicit for your input here on the Yelp page? My comment was that instead of documenting every single allegation a small business owner has made against them, we should only include those that have more than just local media coverage. CorporateM (Talk) 17:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Bill Still

I think it would only been rational to give me enough time to make a case. The William T. Still article was deleted way too quickly.

There was a "G4" or (something like that) claim. Which just isn't the case, since the stub was created from zero and I actually copypasted the older article in the talk page for reference.

I'm not proposing that the guy's claims are legitimate (although they are not that far from those of Ron Paul), but that they guy is exposing so much material that Wikipedia should find a couple of secondary sources to talk about them. If you check google books, you'll see that some writers claim he is a fraud and some support him. The point is that he has presence, anyway. I had the Beloit International Film Festival Award reference and I was going to add the International Forum on Financial Systems in Istanbul, in which the President of Turkey spoke as well. That and one book (ideally one debunking) and you have 3 unconnected sources.

It is not the first time the article has been done, and it has similar stubs in 3 other languages (the Swedish one foun better references, which I was about to use). There is a legitimate need for information on this guy, who is easy to google, anyway.--20-dude (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• I just found a WHDT report, that's 3 unconnected soures outside Google books [19]. --20-dude (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • There have been so many previous deletions, that the best thing to do would be to go to Deletion Review. I suggest you make a talk page draft first, with the new references that you have found included. Then make your case, and be sure to mention the articles in the other WPs. If you can make a reasonable case for restoration, with the option for anyone who wants to take it to AfD , I think you've got a decent chance, though consensus at DRV is unpredictable, just as it is everywhere at WP. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• • Well, I'd be losing peer help. But if there's no other way around it (seriously, nothing??) I guess that's what I'll have to do. Originally I wanted to request the article and maybe help providing some sources. Is there any way to get that sort of deal? Or maybe some sort of "trial article" dynamic. The guy is quite a case. He is easy to google, but it's the articles from well known sources are hard to track. It's easier to find those sources (or the leads to them) in his own videos (since they feature clips). How can you link articles from wikis in other languages?? I tried, but when I open the wiki text of an article to see how it's done I can't find it. When I'm done with whatever I do (and if I do), where do I present my case for review??--20-dude (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You wont lose help. I'll help you. More later. The references are in the *text* of the other language article usually, not in the references section; If you find them just copy them as they are to the corresponding part of your text, and add a translation of the title. But I will take a look tonight. DGG ( talk ) 13:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is still a weak baby, but the sandbox is here. I still have no clue on how to tie the articles from other wikipedias. I started with the Swedish article and added information as second hand sources allowed me. I think I could go on looking for more stuff of the sort, but in my experience (I'm a very lapsed wikieditor, who once new all the technical stuff I'm bothering you with) it's never a good idea to do too much of an article without participation of other people.--20-dude (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC). Ps: I'm not sure how it fits but he's mentioned by Forbes here http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2012/05/31/the-case-for-monetary-freedom/.

For linking the article to the corresponding articles in other WPs, there's a more modern way, but the older way still works: w place at the bottom [[sw:SwedishTitle]] using the WP two letter abbreviations. The reverse entires will get made automatically. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think this might be the ideal size with enough references for its debut. Short enough to have a tight control of facts and big enough not to be a stub. What do you think of the writing, does it need rephrasing in some spots? [[20]] --20-dude (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I've done a little gentle tidying, to show willing (hope you don't mind me playing in your sandbox, @20-dude:). As I said when I mentioned the article here at first, I'm neutral about the content but was just keen to ensure that if we had an article it was at, or linked from, the "salted" title "Bill Still". Looking good now. It can be easier to format references if you use {{cite web}} etc, which you can use from the "cite" button on the editing bar. And note the "ISBN" trick: by putting it in capitals, and replacing the equals by a space, we get an automatic link to a search page where readers can check the book in Worldcat etc. PamD 22:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)"

And I've now turned a redlink blue by changing the initial to "I" instead of "İ". If you see a redlink which looks as if it ought to be blue, it can be worth doing a bit of a search to find the article at a slightly variant title (people with or without middle initials, or a Bill/William-type difference, or subtle spelling variations). PamD 22:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, @PamD:. Thank you very much. Everyone is welcomed to play with my sandbox, specially if they are going to make contribs as good as yours. What do you mean "salted"? (No, literally - I'm not familiar with the term). I tried with the templates for references, but I kept getting them wrong. Do you think the sandbox is ready to become an article? What else should I edit?--20-dude (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

"Salted" means that it's been made impossible to create a new article at that title, without the intervention of an administrator (WP:SALT) - after the 3 Deletion discussions on the title, I suppose. Derived from ancient (or symbolic?) practice of spreading salt over your enemies' fields so that they couldn't grow crops again - Salting the earth. I'll leave it to @DGG: to advise on the article's readiness. PamD 22:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Then it's up to you @DGG:. What's next? Should we get another peer review? --20-dude (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

@DGG:: any thoughts on this now? 20-dude seems to be waiting patiently for your advice. PamD 23:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding a wiki deletion

Hi, I need help with an issue I simply don't understand regarding a wiki deletion. I hope your experience as an editor on wikipedia can help me out here. I added a complete new article about the term: "888poker" about two weeks ago. I saw that a few editors seemed to have gone over it changing minor issues which seemed completely normal. I even received the brands' approval for uploading unique content like brand logo, in game photo, etc. Items that I believe can improve wiki users experience. Two days ago I found that a user called "2005" deleted my entire Wiki article, simply taking off the page and redirecting it to 888 holdings. I explained the basic difference between a well known brand (over 10M users) and it's corporate term and even gave the example of pepsico (corporate) having a wiki as well as pepsi, 7up and all its other brands, which is the exact same situation here. The answer I received was unclear (and even rude). You can see the conversation here at the end of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2005

As all content uploaded was 100% new, informational & non spam, I just don't get the accusations of duplicated content and the immediate removal. It can't be duplicated as I wrote it, and if there was s shred of a problem with the content itself, the right move, I believe, would be to comment on content change, instead of removing a completely new informational article that actually gives value to users. Because of the swift removal and false duplication accusations, I wonder if the editor actually read the wiki at all. I have no idea why we wouldn't want to actually enhance wikipedia and improve it to users (isn't that the idea of wikipedia in the first place!?).

Regarding the second argument of writing it in the 888 holdings wiki, I believe that a brand this size merits its own wiki article. If more text is needed, then there is no problem to add and enhance it - it just needs to be published first (and not removed). As other editors who went over this did not find a reason to completely remove the article, I feel this is poor judgement by an editor and I request your experience as an editor to see if this is an actual breach of wiki guidelines and give an editor's second opinion. I would like to settle this dispute as I feel there was hard work, effort and time invested in this (by me) and I don't think the reaction here was justified. Appreciate any help on this issue. The original article can be found on the term "888poker" (view history, and then restore it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyalkn (talk • contribs) 13:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

full answer forthcoming, probably this evening. This topic field is not my specialty , and I need to check a number of things some information before I can give you advice. And it will be only advice, challenged actions at WP are ultimately determined by the community, not individuals, and the community is not always consistent. In the meantime, please read 2005's response on his talk page to another editor in the section above his response to you. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, still waiting your answer on the above issue. Any help here would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyalkn (talk • contribs) 09:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Engage:BDR

Patrolling pages today I came across this. Could you take a look at and let me know what you think. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. The media stories are substantial and semi-independent. I think they represent the PR technique we will find hardest to deal with, the generation of apparently respectable stories. I can't call it A7 or G11. DGG ( talk ) 08:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought that's what you would say. You can see what I was getting at though. Have to leave it as it is then, I suppose. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Gilabrand

Hi DGG: Your expertise would be welcomed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Gilabrand. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi DGG -- I read through the articles you sent and your suggestions and I hope I made quite a few edits and changes, taking out minor information and referencing a CV listed on his institution's website. I hope this works for you, but please let me know if you have any additional suggestions. Thank you again for all your help. Mlgraham828 (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Afc and promotionalism

Hello DGG! Thank you for your note at my talk page, I appreciate the feedback. I will look at those articles you listed this weekend and do some cleanup on them. I'll also try to be more mindful of promotionalism in the future. I'm curious about your technique of judging notability by library holdings, as in the Jedediah Bila AfD - it seems useful especially for pre-internet authors. Do you use Worldcat to find that information? How many libraries do you think are necessary for notability? --Cerebellum (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I use WorldCat most of the time. But WorldCat requires interpretation for 5 factors: First, it covers mainly US and Canadian libraries, with a lesser coverage for the UK and Australia and New Zealand, a very scanty coverage of Western Europe, and little else, so it requires careful interpretation when used elsewhere. Second, it covers almost entirely English language books, for in the US only the largest academic libraries buy anything else. Third, it covers current holdings, so what libraries had 50 years ago is not represented, so for older books of shorter spans of interest such as popular fiction it requires correction also. Fourth, how many titles count for a book to be likely notable depends on the type of book-- mainstream novels and important nonfiction are much more represented than esoteric subjects. I go by the experience of having looked for many books of all sorts, and one can do the equivalent by comparison with books known to be notable. (I have sometimes used comparisons to say that a work is or is not a major work in a field) As a fifth factor: editions must be combined to get a true picture, and the way libraries report holdings this is not always easy. As a result I usually report holdings as approximate figures. For major current works in popular interest academic subjects like economics, a notable book would have at least several hundred. For experimental fiction that fits no standard genre, only a few dozen libraries might buy it, but it can be just as important. For fan-oriented books on games, libraries usually buy very little, because they get outdated very quickly. For some of the kinkier sexual topics, libraries don't buy at all. A scattering of small libraries often indicates author gift copies.

The official WP standard is book reviews. But library holding correlate nicely with book reviews, because libraries buy largely on the basis of such reviews, especially for public libraries.

Outside the US, holdings can be gotten from the catalogs listed at WP:Booksources But none have nearly the depth of coverage in their own countries that WorldCat does in the US. -- but there is the very powerful consolidated search facility of Karlsruher Virtueller Katalog at [21]. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for Guidance

Hi. Sorry to trouble you, but you seem to be an experienced editor who knows what's going on. I do a bit of editing, but it's more of a hobby for me, so I'm not sure about how some things work. I've seen that you've been contributing to the same "articles for deletion" debates as me, and wondered if I could check how these work. I'm a sort of bystander, and don't really want to spend time working on editing these articles, but I'm sort of feeling slightly browbeaten, to the extent that I'm feeling guilty I'm not actually working on these articles myself. I don't really know much about different alien species in films and computer games, and do feel that other people could do a better job. My question is, if I give an opinion in an "article for deletion" debate, am I making any commitment to work on the article? I feel that I'm being bullied into it, and am wondering what I've let myself in for. Any advice you can give would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance. RomanSpa (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Most people who say that an article can be improved at an AfD do not intend themselves to work on. There are many thousands of active editors, and although some leave each year, a similar number join and become active. What is not so bad it must be thrown out right away, can be improved at any time at all. We say that there is no time limit here but that's not quite accurate: if nothing happens after a year or two, the article may get listed for deletion again, and the fact that nobody has worked on it will be added to the arguments for deletions. Its not enough reason to delete an article itself, but if the topic is obscure enough, people may just give up on it.

But it would be extremely valuable for yourself, for WP, and for the people who will be using it now and in the future, if you do improve some articles. If you find yourself able to work within strict deadlines, you can add references to an article already listed for AfD, and then return to the discussion and comment that you have done so, asking the opponents to take another look at it. If you don;t want to work with the threat of deletion hanging over you, pick articles in need of improvement. Almost any WP article is in some need of improvement, but you could look for AfD debates that close as keep, but with people saying there are still problems (that's true for most keep closings, even if the closer doesn't say it explicitly)

In choosing articles to work on, be guided by three factors: your interest in the particular article, your knowledge in the subject field, and the facilities you have at your disposal for finding sources. For many internet sources some form of registration is required, though public and school libraries often provide access to at least some key databases, And articles for some subjects and periods still require access to large print libraries. But the free internet is sufficient to find a great many things expected and unexpected, if you develop the ability to look for it cleverly, beyond just searching the Googles. (Even without looking for sources there are plenty of opportunities for improve the organization and presentation of articles, but it is adding sources and material with sources that we really need the most.) Don't get discouraged by the incredible amount of material that we need to improve. The principle that if many people do a little, we will accomplish a great deal. is the foundation of WP, and it has gotten us from zero to here in 13 years. Think what we could do in the next 13. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for your kind and helpful reply. At present I mostly do three sorts on things on Wikipedia: I correct small errors if I see them when I'm reading a page; I look at lists of alumni from different schools and remove vandalism and vanity edits; and I'm slowly working my way through the towns and villages of Burkina Faso, checking that the details match the official governmental listings (as presented to WHO etc.). I mostly use Google to check the notability of school alumni, and I use governmental, WHO and other UN agency data for the Burkina Faso work. I quite enjoy the work - I just do a little now and then, but gradually it builds up! I hope this is OK. Thanks for your guidance. RomanSpa (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Draft namespace

the RfC has closed with a cle&r consensius for the creation. Has anyone done anything towards implementation? Does the WMF need to be asked direct or does it have to filed for through Bugzilla? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

See User talk:Technical 13. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

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 (UTC)

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 [22], 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: [23]. It was on the AFD page not the article itself. Then upon your advice I tagged the article itself for deletion as "db-a7." [24] Then the author of the article removed the Speedy deletion tag. [25] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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, [26], in page 12; and here [27]) 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)

From London

St. Paul's Cathedral...
Happy holidays, David, and a very happy new year! With many thanks for your help and wise counsel. Voceditenore

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)

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)

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)

Yo Ho Ho

Dougweller (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec13}} to your friends' talk pages.

Dougweller (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy holiday season....

	Cheers, pina coladas all round!
	Damn need a few of these after a frenetic year and Xmas. Hope yours is a good one....Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:51, 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)

Glad Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:43, 26 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)

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)

A beer for you!

Many thanks for your thorough work on my AfD candidates above. Cheers! — Keithbob • Talk • 07:38, 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)

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)

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)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). 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) 00:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Match World Cup

• Please restore the next items into my userspace: Match World Cup, 2011 Match World Cup, 2012 Match World Cup, 2013 Match World Cup, Super Cup of Champions. NickSt (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Follow-Up to Deletion Review Decision: Peter Pakeman

Hello. Unfortunately, you may have missed the question in my last message on Dec. 27, 2013 were I asked whether you were able to access the reference [File:North York Rockets Program Insert (August 1987).pdf]. In its decision, the deletion review noted that the reference file was not accessed at all and hence was not included as part of its decision. This reference file was available to the Administrator, Mark, prior to the article going to Deletion Review. Is there anyway, this file can be retrieved and made accessible to the reviewers in order for an informed decision to be made? As previously noted, the subject of the article is confident he'll be able to obtain the needed permission. However, it would be a waist of time for the subject to seek and obtain permission, and then submit it for review if the reference is already accessible within Wiki.Xave2000 (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been in contact with the subject of the article. Apparently, he's been able to find the reference (proof) he needs. I do not have a copy of the article containing the links-- finding them was a tedious task. Are you able to reproduce the deleted article or email it to me, links and all?Xave2000 (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Re:=thearticle

If you would like to translate it you're welcome (and with the help of others). It is a copy and paste from the German Wikipedia since the page wasn't in the English Wikipedia (but in the German, under the same name). Ich spreche keine deutsch (i speak little german) if that is translated correctly. I have a german vocab but it is not that big so that is why i copied and pasted it and then the browser can translate it to english, that was my thinking anyways. OR instead of translating it should i just have it redirect to the german version and then people can click on translate to english if they'd like? Its your decision, really. and I took out {db-g7}} from the article's code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcfrommn (talk • contribs) 00:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure. As I said, I can do the basics of putting the general sketch into idiomatic English. I have only an ordinary graduate student's knowledge of German, but I can do that much, and I like the exercise. I will try to to get the technical vocabulary hopelessly wrong, butorganizational names are always a problem, as it is generally our practice to translate some but not all of them, as many do not have an exact English equivalent. I leave the more knowledgable to fill in the gaps.

As a rule, it's better to ask for a translation than to simply copy the page--the process goes more easily. The place to do that is. in this case, Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Article requests or wherever it fits best in the pages listed at Wikipedia:Requested articles/By country or the subject oriented sections at Wikipedia:Requested articles -- in this case it would be Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social sciences/Military and military history. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Mass creation of non notable corporate stubs

I think your experience and wisdom is required here and here and its talk page. In brief, there are serious doubts that this is a genuine educational project. Editors claim to be students at various Chines universities. The non notable stubs have been ostensibly created by just going through stock exchange listings and cover specific commercial areas. Most of us agree what needs to be done, but your input would be a plus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I've left a comment on the noticeboard and also a more extended one at User talk:Blueena DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Response to proposed deletion of Kavi Workspace page

DGG, thank you for your attention to the Kavi Workspace page. I have removed the proposed deletion notice, but I will of course abide by whatever decisions are made. I have reviewed the guidelines for creating Wikipedia content at some length and feel that I have a solid grasp of the principles. In creating the page, I have tried to emulate and be parallel to other software product pages linked from List of collaborative software. Many parallel pages seem also to lack significant levels of notability, or refer simply to articles generated by press releases or commercial web sites. Projectplace (software), Telligent, and ProtoShare are three of many examples. I have reviewed Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Do you have recommendations for how to proceed? Thank you. MisterPendrake (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

many parallel pages ought to be deleted also. Not all, of course--it depends on the importance of the company, now or in the past. we measure that here by references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. For products like this, the most convincing references are substantial independent signed product reviews in publications of acknowledged responsibility and authority, (but not mere notices or announcements). If you can add them, the article is not likely to be deleted. Otherwise it probably will be. If I (or anyone) think that they have still not been added adequately in a few days, I will nominate the article for discussion at WP:AFD. The consensus of the community as expressed there about whether it meets the guidelines will decide, as judged by some other administrator. Good luck with it--I hope you are able to show it notable by our standards.

Of the pages you mention, one seems to be adequately sourced, and two less adequately, but I (and possibly others who may happen to see this) will take another look at all three of them. A great many insufficiently notable articles have been aded in the past, and we ought to remove them if they can not be improved sufficiently.At the very least, we do not want to add to their number. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. In lieu of signed product reviews in publications, I submit that the product page earns its notability on the basis of its use. Specifically, it is used widely in the US standards development community. Good examples of entities that rely on the product are the OASIS Open organization, INCITS, and many other ANSI-accredited organizations. The smooth functioning of these organizations and their consensus-driven output relies on the product. While the product does not warrant mainstream press, it does warrant the attention and participation of a large number of technical professionals who use it daily to conduct committee work that results in important American standards. Can this level of participation justify inclusion?

I am seeking parity with other product pages. To explore the comparison further, Sharepoint is a collaboration environment which underlies a large range of business activity, some of it important, some not. As a part of the Microsoft portfolio, it garners large amounts of attention. But as a product, it is not inherently any more important than any other development environment. In the case of Workspace, it is a niche product performing a specialized function in an activity generally considered important to the US economy. I submit this line of reasoning for your consideration and ask that it be entered into the debate. Is there a more direct way to do that than here on your talk page? MisterPendrake (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

This is WP, a community project, that has no way of expertly judging anything.. WP was built on the principle on relying on what other publications said, those that do have expert editing. If they cover something in a substantial way we include it , and we include what they say. It was almost universally thought 12 years ago that in the absence of such expertise a reliable encyclopedia could not be constructed. Nonetheless this seems to have worked, worked much better than any of those who started it, or anyone else for that matter , would possibly have imagined. It is not the only way to make an encyclopedia, but it is the way this particular one is being made, Those who have chosen to work on it, almost all of us volunteers, are fundamentally determined to see it through--to see how far we can carry this concept.

To avoid expert judgment of our own, we avoid considering intrinsic importance. Other publications in the world do, and we rely on them. I sometimes get impatient at the apparent indifference to common sense and the occasional inconsistency that the implies, but I have to acknowledge that it does seem to work. Even were you to persuade me otherwise, all that I could say is that it would be necessary to start another encyclopedia on a different principle. Neither I nor anyone here would want to take the chance of compromising what we have done with our current way of working, for we have done collectively something which nobody ever thought ordinary humans collectively could accomplish. I dreamed of this as a child, and it is amazing to see it accomplished only half a century later in my own lifetime. .

We do not try to meet every need; we try to meet the needs of those who find what we are doing worthwhile. Among the people whose needs it does not meet are those who seek recognition or publicity for what has not yet been recognized in external reliable sources.

So much for the rhetoric. You come here to ask my advice, and I would not be honest if I did not give you the most accurate advice I can give about what will happen here, based upon my seven years experience working primarily with incoming challenged articles. Regardless of your desires or mine, the article will be deleted without the sort of sources people here consider necessary. I've told you what they are. if they're not here by monday, I will do what I am supposed to do , and list the article for discussion.

I am not going to go into a debate and say things other than I think. I shall say it does not seem to meet our guidelines, and let others argue as they will and decide what to do with it. You can enter what you like into the debate, but I don't think anyone has ever succeeded with an argument along your lines, and I have seen hundreds of people try. It may be much less than your merits deserve, but it's what will happen; the experience of others is the best predictor. DGG ( talk ) 06:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Toll

Hi DGG

I noticed that you have done some work on the Toll Global Resources page. We have communicated before and you may remember that I am pretty new to Wiki and I'm learning as I go. Toll is a pretty big company in Australia in that it is widely known and used. There are lots of Toll Wiki pages and some are really old and have out of date information. As we discussed previously it would be much better if there were fewer, pithy Toll pages rather than all the ones that exist at the moment. I think this was your point previously and I agree with you. It would be good to put any current information that exists on the old Aviation, Shipping IPEC pages on the more relevant newer pages and to get rid of the old ones altogether. You may have noticed that I had a go at classifying the pages. I goofed somewhat but I have fixed it over the Christmas break when I had some time. These classifications are a little tricky and I don't really understand why someone would remove the "Companies of New Zealand" from the Toll NZ page, when Toll Group NZ Limited seems to me to very clearly indicate the appropriateness of the category. Do you know why that is? It would good if someone with more experience than me consolidated the Toll pages. Do you have the time and inclination to do so? Do you know of an editor who might be interested in doing it? Regards --PinkAechFas (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

What pages do you think should be there? The company is large enough we might want to go down one level for clarity, but not beyond that. If we agree, I can do the merge. I think the larger articles can be still clear if written so each company name--especially the overall name-- is written only once or twice in it, as I did last night for Toll Global Resources. You'll see how I handled the subcompany names there. I haven't checked if there are redirects, but if not, you or I can make them. .

For the article I worked on last night, I removed the navbox for Toll Companies because they were listed as well in the see alsos. They should be listed just one place or another, but either will do. Which do you think better? DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

As for categories, I can not find that we ever had a category Logistics Companies of New Zealand. Are there any other such companies? If not, we usually don't make a category for a single company, but because there is a possibility that there will subsequently be articles on other companies, I can do it

Hi DGG Thanks for your message. Toll was a fairly small company until the 1990's when it started on an aggressive growth plan based on purchasing other small businesses. In 2012 Toll decided to create six operating divisions to simplify their business. They have rebranded their entire business as "Toll" In a similar way to General_Electric. The most visible aspect of their business to the general community is their trucks and vans on the road so most people have the perception of them as a 'courier company'. Each division has very different operations eg Toll_Global_Express is a courier business in competition with companies such as Fedex whereas Toll_Global_Resources provides remote area and military base camp support in competition with organisations such as Fluor_Corporation. I would certainly not suggest that they are trying to hide some of their potentially contentious business activities from the public eg military, mining etc. Having said that, I think that it is fair that each of these divisions should have their own Wiki page so that it is clear what this multinational conglomerate does.

I think there should be 7 Toll pages (Toll Group, and Toll Global Forwarding; Toll Global Logistics; Toll Global Resources; Toll Global Express; Toll Domestic Forwarding; and Toll Specialised and Domestic Freight). This is how the company is structured and information from various sources such as news articles readily slots into this structure. This is the structure that the company has stated it intends to use for the foreseeable future.

There are several 'legacy' pages that have been created in the past that I have found on the English Wikipedia. Of these pages I think:

Toll_IPEC content should be reviewed (the timeline can be edited down significantly - it looks like it was simply cut and pasted from a sales brochure). The relevant content could then be moved to Toll_Global_Express

Toll_Priority is also an old brand name however the fleet content could be moved to Toll_Global_Express

Toll_Aviation is a business unit of Toll_Global_Express and the history could be moved there

Toll_NZ is part of the Toll_Domestic_Forwarding business unit. In saying that Toll NZ does seem to be important to our Kiwi colleagues. However, if it was kept then it may encourage users in other countries eg Singapore to create their own "local" Toll Group page so maybe it should be consolidated?

Toll_Shipping is part of Toll_Domestic_Forwarding. I think the information on the Shipping page could easily be incorporated into the TDF page.

Also just mentioning the name such as TGR once or twice is fine with me. TGR reads better since you made the changes. Removing the duplication from the nav box and See Also is fine with me. I think I prefer what you have done - leaving them listed in the See Also - it is very easy for people to find them and go to them if they want to. At the end of the day I think all articles should be as reader friendly as possible.

There are categories for logistic companies by country on a Wiki page called Category:Logistics companies by country. I see your point about a cat with one entry but I think there would be others that may be added in time. I think it would be good to have the cat. Also the category that was removed was Category:Companies of New Zealand and there are a number of NZ companies listed. I think the cat Railway companies of New Zealand should if anything be removed because their activities are much broader than rail.

I'll follow your example on the Toll Global Resources page and start editing the others in the same vein. I hope to hear from you again.

Regards --PinkAechFas (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

CSD A7 for Gavin Patterson

As I understand it, you recently tagged Gavin Patterson for speedy deletion per WP:CSD A7. This seems quite inappropriate as I would expect that being the CEO of any plc is a sufficient claim of importance to require a proper deletion discussion. I have asked the admin who deleted the article to undelete it. The editor who created this article in good faith seems quite cut up about it so please could you explain your thinking to him so that we may avoid future difficulty in such cases. Andrew (talk) 08:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You're right. This was my error. Remembering it, I seem for some reason not to have noticed that line, but did notice the paragraph about nonexecutive directorships. Even as an American, I certainly should have spotted the abbreviation and recognized it for what it was. And in any case the directorships should have caused me to go more carefully. It would have helped is if the article had linked the names of all the companies that had WP articles in the first draft. It would also have helped if it had had at least one reference in the first draft. As far as I can tell, I seem to have an error rate of about 1 to 2% misjudgements and 0.1% downright bloopers, like this. Even so, that's 144 bloopers over the years. Both figures should be at most half of what they are, but neither of them will be zero. Some people say their rate is in fact zero, but I am not sure I believe them.

However, the check on both misjudgements and errors is the need for a second person to actually do the deletion. (technically this isn't necessary-- I could have deleted as an individual admin, but because I know I have a non-zero error rate, I don't normally do so) A few admins do, and they're wrong to do that, but we haven't agreed on a rule to prevent it.)

I see the comments at that admins talk p., and at the talk p of the person who originally deleted the article. I see the admin involved has not commented. I assume that's just a rare aberration brought on by the unfortunate manner of the original complaint. I am quite distressed that it was my original action that start the chain of compounding errors. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for encouraging new contributions

I barely have time to create a stub article on one of the oldest mountain huts in the Alps than it is marked as Not Notable! Perhaps you should consult with your colleagues in wikipedia:it, wikipedia:fr, wikipedia:de all of which have many articles on alpine refuges. I have removed your so-called contribution. Semudobia (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Different WPs have different standards, though normally we do defer to other language WPs for the geography of their regions. The article did not indicate that it was in the Italian WP, or I would not have tagged it. I have now edited it to indicate--the easiest way tis to add at the very end the line [[it:Rifugio Guglielmina]] There's an automatic procedure which then makes the necessary connections--you only need to add one of the languages, it does the rest. I also added at the top {{Expand Italian|Rifugio Guglielmina}}. However, you are right: I should have checked myself. You would do well to go back to the articles you've been writing and add these links for each of them. (And that particular article as it stood said very little; I only listed it for proposed deletion. You asked it be kept, and another ed. added to it & clarified the notability. ) DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help about "How to do it and avoid deletions"

Blueena (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Though most of the articles I've created are being proposed for deletion, it's really happy to receive your message about "how to do it and avoid deletions". The message includes many detailed suggestions and I believe it must have taken you a lot time. Once again, many thanks!

Remember the David Pettersen article?

Hey, DGG, I was just wondering if you could drop a line on my talk page because the COI editor CoffeeDrinkers wants a more senior editor to assist "them" on the deletion of said article. They seem to be a bit frustrated. I believe I have a handle on the situation but if you could drop a line for me that would be appreciated. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 02:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I'm contacting you and not the deleting admin because you protected the page from recreation and said so on my talk. Thanks! --MrScorch6200 (t c) 02:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

P.P.S. They also requested that the content be restored to their user space. I'm sure you'll be able to help out. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 02:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. The admin told me to speak with both the users who tagged the article for deletion, and the one who actually deleted it. We believe David Pettersen's article complied with the notability requirements - and definitely will in the future. CoffeeDrinkers (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Receive Old Articles

Hi, Would we still be able to receive his old articles posted in the past, and the one that was just posted yesterday? We were wondering if we could receive and retain those records for review. Thank you for your time. CoffeeDrinkers (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

not in this case. Now or ever. Your talk p. has the explanation: you are either engaging in advertisement or harassment. BTW, you may not under any circumstances remove something from another person's talk page. DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

According to the deleting admin, Slon02, the seven articles are not the same. He stated that here. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 03:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion advice needed

• Dark Mail Alliance A new article seemingly aimed at promoting its Kickstarter campaign. If I PROD it the creator will remove the tag. At the same time I don't think it qualifies for G11 as its got a minor mention in The Guardian. Should I PROD it anyway or take it straight to AfD? Thoughts?
• Taylor Wallace, Another new article. I can't find any secondary sources on this guy. Creator will likely remove PROD, should I AfD it instead?
• RAAM any thoughts on this one? Its marginally notable. Merge to Global Country of World Peace?

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I would extend the benefit of the doubt to DMA--notable founder; there's likkely to be more. Otherwise, consider a merge to him. Wallace would be covereed by WP:PROF, which does not require secondary sources--the published papers are independent verification, and the univ. wewebsite can served as a RS for routine bio data. However, his notability is borderline. Fellow of a major scientific society is often sufficient for notability, but ACN seems to have rather low requirements. Highest no. of citations for any published article, 65 , which is not high in this field, nor is 20 published areticles. Book on Anthrocyanins in few libraries. Merge seems a good idea for RAAM, especially because the bulk of the article is unusable promotion. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, good thoughts. I'll let DMA slide awhile. Subjectively, it appears notable and may have enough press soon to meet WP's objective requirements. And I'll let others argue over Wallace and his possible meeting of the WP:PROF threshold. Re: RAAM, I notice someone has proposed a merger there for the second time, so I'll clean up the fluff and support the merger at the talk page. Thanks for the feedback. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Pine River Capital article

Hi DGG or Doug (and anyone in structured finance!),

I commented on Pine River Capital Management through the talk page. I proposed revisiting what fact is asserted as to why the firm is notable and how to arrive at the conclusion that it is notable. I found some better references. Thanks for reviewing. What makes Pine River notable is that it was the first to, in August 2009, launch a $250 million real estate investment trust that was the first to be formed through a merger with a special purpose acquisition company. http://www.iijournals.com/doi/abs/10.3905/JSF.2009.15.3.073?journalCode=jsf#sthash.8N39Uvww.dpbs

and

http://www.structuredfinancenews.com/news/-199076-1.html

After the housing market and RMBS market fall out, this was a big and rather contrarian play to see Pine River not just invest, but wade in in such a permanent way into the RMBS market. Later, we saw big finance firms follow suit. Thus, Pine River had a seminal impact on the RMBS market from 2009-2014. From an financial academic standpoint this is a page to keep tinkering with. It needs a bit of TLC from structured finance academics. 172.162.49.167 (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Now, do you have any good sources that say what you just said about the significance? That's the sort of material we need. I don;t think most of the user will realize the significance unless it's pointed out to them, and we can't say it on the basis of your own original analysis, even if it seems sensible to me. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, like most articles probably, this one will need some real digging for the best quotes. I found a few sources off the beaten path-- one of which I found via google scholar.172.162.49.167 (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The cite added properly: Thetgyi, Olivia (Fall 2009). "MBS REIT First to be Formed Through SPAC Merger". The Journal of Structured Finance (Institutional Investor Journals) 15 (3): 73–75. doi:10.3905/JSF.2009.15.3.073. Retrieved 6 January 2014, supports the "first MBS REIT" concept. Two other complementary sources support the same. Housingwire is the better of the other two.

I think the issue you might see following press releases relates to churnalism, or an attempt by some journalists who don't really know what to write because they don't really understand the subject, and the result is just a copy of a press release. Here the structured finance community covered a good bit of the subject. The mainstream media did a lackluster job. The most useful coverage actually comes from law firms, which started whole practice areas around the idea. The finance world isn't often innovative, but this is an example of innovation at work. It deserves some interlinking with the REIT and RMBS articles. It's possible that the area of structured finance might lack sufficient coverage on Wikipedia.172.162.49.167 (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Most fields of business except computer technology and the transportation and entertainment industries lack sufficient coverage on Wikipedia. Finance may actually be one of the better ones, but the articles are not systematic, are not usually based upon good academic sources, and are insufficiently clear for the likely readers. But what we need to do most is improve those on the general concepts. The ideal way of bring a particular company in is if someone has written an article using it as an example, or even better, discussing it as a pioneer. But to show this, especially with paywalled sources, requires carefully selected in-context quotes. Writing this sort of article is difficult in any subject. all I can do is comment as a reader whether it is clear to me and seems to be fair and NPOV and uses representative examples.

You seem to very much know what you are doing and I will help you as much as possible with what I do know, which is what sort of articles fit into WP and what sort of sources we accept. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC) .

Thanks. I'll see if I can get some additional research assistance here to find deeper sources beyond the Journal of Structured Finance and Housing Wire.172.162.49.167 (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Auxiliary fraction

Re your unprod of Auxiliary fraction, would you care to address the {{onesource}}/WP:GNG concerns that were the primary reason for my prod? Your edit summary only talks about the other concern, WP:NOTHOWTO. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I expect to work further on it. The question is whether it's a basic part of Vedic mathematics or an idiosyncratic technique & I do not yet know. DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

See Tekriwal, Gaurav (2014). Idiot's Guides: Speed Math. Alpha Books (Penguin Group). pp. 69-77. ISBN 978-1-61564-316-5. for its continuing utility. --Bejnar (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it's importance in the fundamental subject is more important than it's current usefulness for mental arithmetic. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Slon02's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

PrintingForLess

It looks as though the article at PrintingForLess will be kept as either "Keep" or "no consensus". Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PrintingForLess. How valuable is it to get the drek out of the article history by TNTing it? --Bejnar (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

responded there. thanks for letting me know. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I commented. IMO, you will get a lot of resistance with arguments that focus on the contributor and not the content. I think the better argument is that we would prefer having nothing at all over having an advert. The standard should be whether the article is neutral-enough to be sufficiently useful to the reader without damaging Wikipedia's credibility as a high-quality, neutral resource.

I believe you are the one that planted the idea in my head, that we should have a policy about company articles that defines what is neutral. Not like the BLP policy, but something that takes a strong stance both on promotion and unsourced contentious material and encourages deletion of both with the same fervor as copyvio. I would be well-equipped to write it, but.. well... you know. However, you are even more qualified to do so.

Like the BLP policy to an extent, it wouldn't actually introduce any new rules. We can already delete unsourced contentious material per V, NPOV, etc. We should already delete adverts per WP:NOT. It would just provide an interpretation of those rule for this type of article. CorporateM (Talk) 15:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It is always possible to write a neutral article by writing a directory entry. The GNG is based on the principle that if there are substantial references, there will be something worth saying. Unfortunately, when references are themselves based on PR, this isn't the case, so the rule is the references have to be independent. But in some areas, no references are independent.

It is straightforward (though sometimes technically difficulty) to decide if something is copyvio, and the material can always be preserved by rewriting if anyone thinks it worth the trouble. It is not as clear what material is promotional, because information about a person or organization inherently promotes their activities, by letting those potentially interested learn about them--though if it is fair it may lead the reader to want no part of them.

The rule about contentious material is that it needs referencing whether positive or negative. Te rule about particular care for negative material in BLP ( including even sourced material if minor and not directly relevant to their notability ) is necessary to avoid undue harm to living humans, and even though a laudable purpose is so a frequent cause of dispute that I would not extend it further--it is often at odds with NPOV. Since anything is potentially contentious, we usually interpret the need for sourcing as a good-faith challenge, But since it is hard to tell if a challenge is reasonable, this leads to our current practice of over-referencing some types of BLPs. If only NPOV independent secondary sources of high reliability are accepted, most material in many areas cannot be referenced. And since all references must be selected and used in context, even the best references can be used for propaganda. (e.g. we accept a quote from a person about his beliefs, but a person says different things at different times for different purposes.)

As a variant of what you said, we need is a policy for BLPs, organization articles,and everything else, which describes what is desirable content in a positive sense; we have too many business articles without financial information, too many BLPs which try to add a personal note by giving the names and ages of a persons children, too many BLPs or organization articles both that describe minor charities, and no rule for deciding which ones are major. We have no rule that the amount of detail in an article is proportional to the subject's importance, so we have many absurdly detailed though perfectly verifiable articles about people & things of trivial importance where there are for example, good local histories. We have been unable to get a guideline that the extent detail in describing creative works should depend on the significance of the work.

Perhaps the reason we care about inclusion and not content is that our procedures are not suitable for resolving disputes about content. Perhaps such decisions would require a reliance upon editorial authority here , rather than the rule that anyone can edit and decide.

About motive both the consensus and myself has been of two minds. I consider the need to pay attention to motive an emergency procedure, justified by the infrequency of paid editing it writing NPOV content. I did not support it until a year ago. At AfD, decisions go both ways, depended upon the participants and what they think of the subject of the article as well as what they think about the article. One approach is to seek out puppetry and use speedy to at least remove subsequent contributions, but I and many others have never been happy with removing the contributions that are good & necessary article, especially in the absence of real evidence that it does in fact discourage the continuing offenders.

If it becomes too difficult to work on commercial organizations I will work on other things; the quality of WP does not depend only on me. And there is the inevitable bias that those things any effective editor will choose to work on will be better covered, and covered according to their POV. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I think WP:BALASPS provides some guidance on this issue by saying content should be included based on "significance to the subject" but it is a good example of how NPOV requires interpretation and explanation. There is already rough consensus on the bar trivial lawsuits and awards must meet to be "significant to the subject." It should not be forbidden to use primary sources, only to use them exclusively on a topic that has zero truly independent sources. The only similarity with BLP is that such a policy would cover a group of articles in a certain category. If anything, given the anti-corporate culture here, it may have the opposite effect, of leading to overly negative articles. CorporateM (Talk) 13:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That deals with balance within articles, and is very helpful; it does not deal with the problem of the extent of an article to be written. But it may help with the problem in articles on organizations (and people) of the use of valid refs to very minor events (e.g., he gave a speech at X, or they gave $10,000 to the YMCA) because there happens to be a reference to it and refs are needed for GNG. The really necessary thing to do for a rational encyclopedia is to get rid of the GNG as the basic standard. That isn't likely, but I hope to contijue persuading people to actually decide on other bases while still pretending to rely on it. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Notability of awards

I'm sure you probably know a lot more about the notability of awards than I do, so I wonder if you'd mind taking a look at this article and this article. I originally PRODed them but they were dePRODed by the creator without really addressing the issues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

A usual criterion is whether the people have articles--they don't seem to , but in some fields, that can be our error.-- especially if the prize is being awarded for work before about 2000. An award that is regarded as conferring notability is obviously worth a WP article, but some others may be also. (And yes it does tend to be a circular)

There is no question that the major awards of the IEEE are notable ; they also have awards for education and for service--at present we would probably not consider any of them notable. Awards for best paper of the year are a borderline category, awards for best paper in a particular journal in a particular year even more borderline--tho there are some fields where one particular journal is the only really impt. one. These awards are from a IEEE special interest group, the Technical Committee on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (TCPAMI), It is possible that its major awards might be notable also. From the description of the awards at their web site the Mark Everingham Prize might be, but the standards are very vague & only 1 has yet been awarded. For the Helmholz, I'm not sure--it's specifically intended to recognize old contributions, and I haven;t seen that particular niche before. But there is no way I personally can really tell--this needs an expert in the subject field, which is computer vision. For the technical requirements of GNG, it would need a check to the extent they are considered notable by independent references. Since the IEEE is by far the most impt society in its field in the world, looking for non-IEEE RSs is possibly irrelevant; it might be enough to look at those outside the CV group, but very possibly everyone impt in the subject is part of that group. It makes sense to judge who among minor players is impt by what major players say about them--judging the major ones by what the minors think seems a little odd to me. Since this Technical Committee is clearly intent on entering everything they do at WP in a coordinated fashion, it will need discussion. In general for a topic like this, I think it is better to go straight to AfD. Given their apparent determination, certainly so. I am curious what the experts will say on these two--& possibly on their other awards also. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

and see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAMI Young Researcher Award DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that detailed explanation. I have sent each article to AfD. I have suggested in each case that merging with the parent article might be a solution, but without the lists of recipients of course. You may wish to comment there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The New School for Public Engagement

Good afternoon,

Thank you for your review of my article The New School for Public Engagement. However, I do have a suggestion concerning its rejection.

A couple years ago The New School changed the name of their Milano division from Milano The New School for Management and Urban Policy to Milano School of International Affairs, Management, and Urban Policy. Wikipedia had simply updated the title of the article and updated the content. Since The New School for Public Engagement is an update to the now late The New School for General Studies can we just change the article title and update the content similar to Milano? Keeping in mind that The New School for Public Engagement is the division that includes Milano, yet Milano has its own Wiki article. Please advise. Mickeyallen (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that makes sense--since the review, I have wondered if my decision was actually correct,considering the other New School pages. To avoid any confusion, I have moved the page myself, and you can update it with appropriate referenced material in the usual way. For convenience, what you had written on the AfC page is still in the history of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The New School for Public Engagement, right here But please be sure to indicate the exact relationships in the history section--and the moment, they are not entirely consistent. My appreciation to you for suggesting this solution. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

External link section in journal articles

Hi David, I remember that ages ago you reverted me when I removed external links to journal home pages from the EL section of articles because I argued that they were redundant. I remember that you explained to me why I was wrong and ever since I have added them to such articles. However, for the life of me I cannot remember the reasoning. RockMagnetist has removed such links from several journal pages, so could you perhaps remind me of the reason why these links should not be removed? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:EL,we always add a link to the home page of the person or organization. . I see it not merely as a permitted optional link--which WP:EL is unambiguously clear about (in which case, nobody should remove it once added) , but a required one, in which case everyone who sees an article without it should add it. . The rationale is that it's basic data, as much as any information possibly is, because that's where people find the further information that isn't encyclopedic DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, DGG. If the link is in the infobox, is there any need to have it in the External links section as well? RockMagnetist (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The infobox just supplements the article by duplicating structured information. I hope someday we won't need to actually enter it twice--I think that's one of the future plans for Wikidata. DGG ( talk ) 07:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Marks article request

Hi there DGG, I wonder if you could just check the Stephen Marks article you tagged with news release when you get time. I’ve removed some bits that I felt might read as extraneous or non NPOV (although the article wasn't written with any POV other than notability by virtue of role/longevity). He does tend to be written up in a certain way from profiles and interviews I could find as source material and – on rereading – that ‘character of the high street’ stuff may have crept in a bit too much. Would appreciate your opinion on any bits that still stand out as needing a rethink. I don't believe Marks should be shifted to Wikinews – after I compiled the page I discovered he was on a Fashion project hitlist of pages needing creation. Should have done this before and have now added the Fashion banner to his talk page so the project can also review. Many thanks.Libby norman (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Don't know if you know or not, but the delightful Gregory Kohs of MyWikiBiz mentioned this edit of yours in his latest tweet. Probably harmless, but I saw it and thought I'd let you know. :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 21:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

well, the first posting is an example of what I try to do here; the second indicates a possible imbalance that has been frequently noticed by many people. Some of his comments about WP are worth thinking about. We are cutting back on extravagant content in one field; perhaps other fields we should do so also, or perhaps there is a good purpose in the distinction. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Tomas Deletion Review

Hi. Thanks for making the text of the entry about Andrew Tomas available for review, and for noting this in the Deletion Review. I've added an explanatory note to your comment, so that people can see what the page looked like at the time of the deletion debate. If it's not clear, please let me know, and I'll try to make things clearer. (Because I didn't know the rules properly, I just re-created the article with a brief text so as to spark some debate. Fortunately, User:Coffee put me right, and I shan't make that mistake again, but my ill-informed actions may have inadvertently muddied the waters.) Anyway, thanks for your help with this. RomanSpa (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Notable?

I was looking at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steve Tomasula and couldn't make up my mind. Perhaps you'll be able to decide. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The subject is clearly notable as an author; there seems to be sufficient critical comment. One of his works was published by U Chicago. There are 2 graduate theses devoted in substantial part to his work. However, some of these sources used are unfamiliar to me. I see what probably caused you to ask: the article somewhat resembles a self-written author profile.he various books claimed to be discussing him need page numbers, and I do not like the use of cherry-picked laudatory quotes.

The difficult with AfC is that it would be good to send AfCs like this back for rewriting, but experience seems to show that only about 10% of them ever do get rewritten, and then we lose them. On the other hand, I feel uncomfortable simply approving articles of low quality. Ideally, we more experienced editors would fix them ourselves, but the relatively few of us interested don;t have time to cope with them all. For some sorts of writers, I feel comfortable making a quick rewrite myself, but I am not familiar with this form of literature. What I would do is remove some of the less justifiable material and hope for future improvement, like the rest of WP, all of which also needs improvement, and a good deal of it is worse than this. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Question

Someone is asking me about Open University of Switzerland. It has only two primary sources. I have not looked for other sources but let's assume for the sake of conversation there are none, or very few. Might it be a candidate for AfD? According to WP:School, it must meet the general notability guideline. However, I have seen many secondary school articles with little or no secondary sources. I also brought a university to AfD once and was told that accredited colleges were notable regardless of sourcing. Yet I can't find any guideline that says that. What am I missing? Thanking you in advance for you help. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

There are two separate questions: notability of colleges, and what to do about this article.

Guidelines are codifications of what we do at WP. They can be established in two ways: by formal processes, or by practical consensus. Written guidelines have two limitations: they are very hard or impossible to change, and regardless of what is written, any guideline or even policy needs to be interpreted in actual cases. We decide case by case, and many is the written guideline and even policy that is in abeyance because we do not follow it. (Indeed even one of the core principles, WP:NPA, is not observed in any real sense, and we keep having difficulties about the true meaning of anybody can edit.)

If you prefer to see it in terms of the GNG, remember that WP:N is explicit that the GNG is the usual, but not the only, way of determining notability. And even WP:N itself, is a guideline, not policy. There is no policy for notability, beyond that implied by WP:NOT. (in particular, NOT INDISCRIMINATE). Schools are not unique here--we also accept any populated place that can be shown to have real existence. We also accept all people in certain categories, such as Olympic athletes and members of state legislatures. All we need for any of these is verification: WP:V is a true policy, in the sense that we do indeed always follow it & nobody has seriously suggested otherwise. It would be just as much so if it were not written down.

Put simply, we have never, in the last 6 years at least, deleted an article on a true degree granting university on the basis of lack of notability.

We have deleted institutes of higher education for other reasons. We certainly delete those that fail verification. We delete articles that are copyvio unless someone decides to stubbify them, & we delete pure advertising-- I have personally deleted at least a hundred college article. We usually delete ones that do not offer degrees. We are sometimes a little diffident about community colleges, and often merge them. Even for true colleges, if there is very little information beyond the name, we sometimes combine them into combination articles. And, while we do not absolutely insist on accreditation, we are rather skeptical about unaccredited institutions, and have deleted a few where we are not convinced of the true rather than the claimed status (this is especially true of traditional religious schools not organized in the EuroAmerican patten). There are also serious special problems about higher education institutions in some parts of Asia, where their true nature, & whether their certificates are essentially degrees, can be very hard to determine. And of course, in an era of online-only schools it can be very hard to determine what is meant by "real existence", an example of an excellent innovation giving excellent opportunities for innovative abuse.

There are true problems with this one: it is a relatively small private European business school, and the question can be raised upon whether it is merely a glorified trade school that pretends to issue degrees. It is nationally licensed, and tries to pass that off as accreditation. It is accepted by some trade bodies, and some decidedly non-official groups, and tries to call this true accreditation. Ref 7 does not say what the article claims it says. (it turns out to be "ranked among the best online universities in Switzerland"--I need to check where it gets its numbers from.) And even some of this quasi-accreditation is for the parent group, ABMS Education Group, not this particular university. The article lists a great number of fields in which it claims to offer even Ph.D degrees. And it advertises itself on its web site, tho not in the WP article, as "2 accredited degrees in 1 year: MBA and DPhil" In other words, I have some doubts myself about it. I have tried to write honest articles about such places before, and had considerable difficulties. My suggestion is not to delete the article, but to read the sources with a skeptical eye and use quotations for the claims. I'd love to find some truly reliable sources for all these schools that rely less upon what they say about themselves. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi DGG and thanks for the comprehensive response. I am well aware that GNG has "exceptions" like athletes, academics, some organizations (like those on major stock exchanges) as well as cities, towns etc. But sometimes there are written guidelines for those such as WP:Athlete or WP:Academic etc. Schools seem to be one of the informal consensus exceptions and I appreciate your detailing of it. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Nicholas Whittaker

to be honest, I can't even remember!

~~

Anonymous Section Blanking

Hello DGG, The Zycus page was updated in November but content on the history and competitors section was removed recently and info box content was replaced with derogatory remarks by an anonymous person. Is it possible to keep a check on this? Is there a way we can lock it? You have proposed deletion but this page was updated and full of information until two days back. Rima.sharma (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Nicholas Whittaker

Hi DGG, please feel free! If you need any more info you can email me on muzzyhilly@gmail.com

Picknick99 (talk)

Berkeley Hall School DRV

Hi DGG, Thank you for your review on Berkeley Hall School DRV. Most of the information in the previous article was drawn out from the sources that I mentioned & perhaps a few other sources which I have now listed in the DRV. The only part of the redirected article that may not be well sourced is the "Administration" part which I can remove if it is a concern. Azakeri (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Arno Tausch

Could you perhaps have a look at this article? It was deleted at AfD a few years ago and recently re-created and just scraped by through another AfD. I have tried to give the main editor advice, but he kind of politely ignores me. I'm a bit at a loss how to handle this. --Randykitty (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Not this again. I remember it leading into a very long debates in several places about the reliability of one of the publishers. It's a prime example of how one can ruin an article on a notable person by trying to include too much, and harm one's case in an AfD by saying too much. It would never even have been challenged at AfD had it been appropriately modest. The current editor (or editor name) thinks he has found a clever way of getting in the titles of all his articles, but we can deal with him. I'll say what has usually worked--though it is not easy to make an impact on editors of any articles about this entire general sphere of thought-- and make some cuts and changes. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

a very good edit of the arno tausch article

simply thanks a lot, best wishes john de norrona from i phone — Preceding unsigned comment added by John de Norrona (talk • contribs) 18:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have a good deal more to do there. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Forth Bridge

I think that you should read the talk page of this article and then reconsider your precipitate renaming of this page. I'm not very inclined to take the experience of someone living in America as to what this structure is usually called very seriously. And have you read the section on your userpage "How I work2 recently TheLongTone (talk) 10:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hallo David, The editor who asked for the page to be deleted to allow the page move used {{db-move}} which states "Asserted to be non-controversial maintenance". Reading the talk page, with several previous rejected suggestions to move "Forth Bridge" to "Forth Rail Bridge", shows that this nomination was incorrect, as it is certainly not "non-controversial". Please revert the move you made. Thanks. PamD 12:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

And there are 100+ [28] incoming links to Forth Bridge, intended for the rail bridge. PamD 13:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• I endorse these comments. If you look at book titles, it's clear what the common name for this is: The Forth Bridge: A Picture History; The Forth Bridge; 100 Years of the Forth Bridge; The Forth Bridge and its builders; &c. It's a cultural institution in the UK and so will arouse passion. Please revert. Andrew (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

My error, but let me explain:

I personally also think of the Forth Bridge as meaning the Forth Rail Bridge, which from my viewpoint represents a structure of very great importance to the history of technology, while I know the road bridge exists but nothing more and I have never heard of the new one My awareness might represent the general view outside the UK, and WP is worldwide--and is in any case irrelevant, since as you tell me, I coincides with the UK view. (except that people in the UK are undoubtedly more aware than I of the new bridge). But it is always a conflict between best-known and avoiding ambiguity, & on balance I think its generally safer to pick the solution that avoids ambiguity, so it made sense to me. .

But you are right that I had not seen the prior discussion, which I should have done. So its my mistake. Anyway. an admin has no more authority in a move than anybody else, and is only needed for the technical purpose of doing the necessary deletions. I will restore the prior status. DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks...although I do see the point about avoiding ambiguity, the road bridge is just another lump of infrastructure, while the rail bridge is one of the few structures that merits the epithet 'iconic' (a word that normally sets my teeth on edge), & if one says 'Forth Bridge' it is what most (UK) people will think of: & I'd guess the rest of the world. Toolserver hung up on me when I tried to check the page view figures, but a dollar to a donut the rail bridge gets an order of magnitude more hits.TheLongTone (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll get there tonight. There have been enough changes that it's tricky. DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The Forth Road Bridge, built in the 1960s, is on the point of collapse so any ambiguity is strictly temporary. Thincat (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hallo David, You said above that you would "restore the prior status", but didn't do so, presumably because a formal WP:RM had been set up by the time you looked back at the article. You don't seem to have commented in that discussion, and it might be helpful if you did so. If the RM were to be closed as "no consensus" then I suppose the changed status would remain, which would be unfortunate, given that your move was in response to an incorrect request for it as "uncontroversial maintenance". PamD 21:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ref: Your recent nomination

Dear David, first off thank you for being a passionate Wikipedia curator. This is to shortly let you know that I left a reply to your recent nomination and hope you'll reconsider. Thank you. Ibjennyjenny (talk) 10:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael L.J. Apuzzo

I noticed you've had Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael L.J. Apuzzo marked as being reviewed since November. Is this intentional? Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll get to it very soon, thanks for reminding me. He seems to meet WP:PROF DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Centre national de recherche en anthropologie sociale et culturelle

Hi DGG, I just encountered Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National centre of research in social and cultural anthropology. This is apparently an Algerian governmental social sciences research organisation, which publishes a review journal and also publishes its works in various other journals. After the AfC submission was declined twice, the submitter sought help elsewhere and was told that basically the organisation is just not notable and they should give up. I'm wondering if this may be a misinterpretation. Do you have any thoughts? Thanks, Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

There are no real rules for AfC, and everyone reviewing articles does as they please. (There are steps being taken that should remedy this somewhat, but they are not yet in effect.) Informally, the standard for acceptance is whether the article is likely to pass a community consensus at WP:AfD, which is the only actual mechanism for determining whether any article is accepted; the usual definition of "likely" is 50% -- AfD can be unpredictable and inconsistent in the way it interprets the guidelines and whether it makes exceptions, so even the most experienced people here cannot really predict in advance. (My personal estimate of the inaccuracy is that AfD has a 10-20% error rate in each direction; AfC I think wrong about 30% or the time, again in each direction, if one considers only the submissions that would pass WP:CSD--there is of course a substantial amount of unquestionable junk, just as in New Pages)

Therefore, the best course for an AfC whose acceptability is debated is to accept it and give it a chance. Anyone who disagrees can go to AfC. The operating principle of WP is that the community makes the decisions, and individuals make decisions only when they are confident they are acting for the community.

I have accepted the article. This is not a judgment that I necessarily think it notable--If it does go to AfD, let me know, and I'll consider what I what to say. Remember that inclusion in other WPs is a good but not conclusive criterion. It will be interesting to see if the article is challenged at the fr and de WPs. They are both normally stricter than we are, though they use somewhat different criteria, with less formal emphasis on details of sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hsin Sheng College of Medical Care and Management

Hsin Sheng College of Medical Care and Management was speedy deleted because of WP:A7. However educational institutions are exempted from A7. Please check the criterion and recover the page. Thanks! --Quest for Truth (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• a/c the article, it's a " private vocational school" not an actual university; we usually define a university by whether it offers academic degrees, rather than certificates However I can not really determine its nature from the web site--it is in Chinese and the way it is set up, Google translate is totally useless. Have you any information? DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

That was my take as well. If this was a legitimate college or university in the commonly accepted sense of the term then I missed it and will take the hit for the improper (A7). -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the inclusion of the college in the list of universities in Taiwan can be a piece of useful information? It is not strictly a university but it is in higher education. More specifically it is a technical institute. By the way WP:A7 does not apply to all educational institutions, not just universities. --Quest for Truth (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

the wording of A7 seems to have changed. I must track down just when. since there is some doubt, I will restore it. but I have nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hsin Sheng College of Medical Care and Management, since it cannot be verified to be a university. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:PROF

Do you think this scholar would be notable based on his citation count (or perhaps other criteria)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

not necessarily on the basis of the citation count but he also has a number of published books in worldcat, some with substantial holdings. He's now an associate professor, btw,: CV DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

So he would pass WP:PROF? I was not sure about that and want to avoid writing an entry if it is to be deleted. How would you justify your vote on AfD here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

If I could find book reviews in the usual indexes, it would pass WP:AUTHOR. WP:AUTHOR (and WP:BOOK) are two very nondemanding criteria. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Farhan Aslam

Hi DGG,
Could you take a look at Farhan Aslam? There is something hinky going on there and I'm not sure what it is. I had looked at it last week as a new page and tagged it for ref improve, COI and notability. I also put a PROD on it. Sometime in the last 24 hours it was suddenly deleted, allegedly at the author's request. And now it's popped back up, as a new article, and as best as I can remember it looks the same. The author was a SPA if I remember right and it just looked like a piece of self promotion. Any idea what's going on here? -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It was indeed the author's request; it was replaced by the same editor with an expanded article--the 2nd half seems to be new, tho I have not checked all the old versions. I don;t know why they did that, instead of contesting the prod, but our procedures can seem inscrutable. In any case if you think it does not adequately show notability, take it to WP:AFD, and it'll be decided one way or the other. There is apparently no point is using prod. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/A._T._Moorthy

Dear David/DGG, Many thanks for taking the time to review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/A._T._Moorthy, which is the draft entry of my father on which I have been working. I note that you worry that the manner of writing suggests to you that I have plagiarised it. I have no defence against that charge, in the sense that it is difficult to prove a negative (i.e. that the original source from which I plagiarised it does not exist). All I can offer you, to convince you otherwise, is this note, which you may wish to analyse to see if it bears the same signature as the article. I do write a lot, at work now, and have written a lot in the past (e.g. my PhD thesis in Solar physics from University College London).

Perhaps you would reconsider your charge that the article is plagiarised, in the light of my note?

Kind regards Sri Sri.moorthy (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)sri.moorthy

I revised my comment. The parts which primarily attracted my notice were the sections on the Tamil conflict & his retirement--this is interpretation, which we refer to as original research. Tho of course normal and required in academic contexts, we do not do this here, and present only what is in the sources. For general background, we present only the barest minimum for orientation purposes, and then we just link to the article here on the subject. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 26 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Sergi Kapanadze page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

International Journal of e-Collaboration

This journal is currently at AFD and the discussion is mainly about whether inclusion in Scopus is sufficient for notability. I have been arguing it is, although I must admit (I think I already told you a while ago) that I think Scopus is getting too all-inclusive to be really regarded as being very selective. The nom is coming with some convincing arguments about this. Of course, the journal is also in PsycINFO, which is fairly selective, although being a "major database" is perhaps debatable. Perhaps you can have a look. --Randykitty (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Request block the violator, who does not respect Wikipedia

Hello. On behalf of all Wikipedia community, I ask you block this violator forever in English Wikipedia: OneLittleMouse

Because he violates the reputation of living and dead people:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

When he got the warning be free of the violations in accordance with the common rules of Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OneLittleMouse#Notification_to_provide_respect_of_the_rules_of_Wikipedia (not was the rollback of this warning, because he understands that he is the violator on very high level, and he continues violate the rules: full anarchy exists in Russian Wikipedia). This page must be deleted totally: OneLittleMouse (violator got warnings many times). Do not need do something else even (other users will know their fate in English Wikipedia, if they will support the violator). Thank you! - Euro5125 (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC).

Please use WP:BLPN, the BLP noticeboard. I myself do not read Russian well enough to fully understand the problem. DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you! Can I appeal to the texts on your page (my topic with the information here)? - Euro5125 (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC).

Maria Boniecka

What do you think about her notability? She authored about 10 books, but there are next to no reliable sources for her life. I tried looking, and couldn't find anything. Borderline case - a lot of minor achievements that in themselves are not enough, but... Perhaps I missed something. Perhaps you can find a good argument to save her? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I would be reluctant to delete it , as she has a p. in poWP, and there's what may be a major literary award. (I'd reduce the political material, & emphasise the literary work) Ucieczka za druty is in 35 worldcat libraries, so she is known outside Poland. For how well he work is known in Poland, there's apparently a Polish union catalog: NUKAT, Union Catalog of Polish Research Libraries . The best way to go forward is to look for reviews in Polish periodicals & newspapers. I do not know what there may be in way in indexes, or if the search can be done elsewhere than in Poland. The other thing to do is to try to establish the importance of Ziemia i Morze . If it isworth an article, she is worth one as the founding editor. Looking at the Google translation of the article on it in poWP, I think an article on it would work here also.

Now, can you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Pomorski, which I just rescued from deletion at AfC. There should be bnespaper articles in appropriate places. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I will, but in the future, could you WP:ECHO me? I don't make a habit of checking for replies on other people's talk pages. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure. 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) 00:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Erwin Anton Gutkind (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Martin Wagner

Frank A. Ready (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to School of Hotel Administration

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Where to search for ejob posts for AfDs etc.

I have a feeling that a certain company is being promoted on Wikipedia by some editors about whom allegations of paid editing have been raised in the past, although apparently not proven conclusively. Are there some places where info about this can be usually found? I vaguely recall a WMF staffer being caught in a similar way recently. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Risdall Advertising Agency

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Risdall Advertising Agency, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Risdall Advertising Agency and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Risdall Advertising Agency during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. DGG ( talk ) 08:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sven Voelpel

Hi DGG, I have changed and added sources and references in order to improve the notability. The style has also been changed. And please see the German WP page for comparison. I hope the article now finds your approval. I'm happy to make more adjustments and learn more, thank you. Jacobsflem (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

My AfC draft

DGG, I hope you're doing well! You've given feedback on my AfC draft a couple times, so I'd be glad for your input on some changes I've made. The main changes I've made since you last commented:

1. Dropped the entire partnerships section.
2. Cut down and reorganized the section on Titanium.
3. Reworded some phrases more straightforwardly: for example, replaced "the company began turning over the management of Titanium's desktop application toolkit to the community" with "Appcelerator...decided to end development of Titanium's desktop application toolkit" and replaced "Appcelerator acquired Nodeable...in order to strengthen its mobile application analytics for enterprise customers" with "Appcelerator bought Nodeable...seeking to strengthen its mobile application analytics offerings.

—N at Appcelerator (my conflict of interest) 16:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking at not the details but the basic problem, the company seems to be known for one product only and its extensions, and I don't really think it's justified to have two articles. About half the existing article is really about Titanium and could be merged in--the rest could be used as a new section in that article about the company. From the point of view of an encyclopedia, that's the best way. From the pt of view of getting maximum publicity, it might be otherwise. The accepted standard for an article being accepted is a 50% chance of passing AfD. It might pass. I'm not going to accept articles that are technically justified but I think inappropriate. What other people may do is up to them. DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm surprised to hear you have notability objections; I thought you were concerned mainly with point-of-view, style, and so forth. Since you ask, from the standpoint of publicity, it really makes no difference whether there are two articles or one—the information would be the same in either case. And, more importantly, while I personally I think the company and the product are separately notable, I don't think a merged page would do either topic harm. But that leaves the page in an odd bind: you can't approve it because it should be merged, and it can't be merged because it isn't in the mainspace. Is there any way around this? —N at Appcelerator (my conflict of interest) 22:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You have found one of the problems in AfC reviewing--it's easier to concentrate on the details. As for the merging, there are several ways, all of them non-obvious. I'm going to approve it, saying I'm approving it for merging. Then I leave it to you to merge the content. Say you are merging in the edit summary. Then change the article on him to a redirect. I'll look in a few days to see if help is needed. If you have additional information on the company at some point, such as if it makes other notable products, you can reverse the merge by yourself. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that seems reasonable. I'll ask for objections on Talk:Appcelerator Titanium first, but I doubt I'll hear any. Generally, I feel paid editors shouldn't edit the mainspace directly (which is why I spent all that time at AfC), but since you'll be keeping an eye out, I think this merge won't be an issue.—N at Appcelerator (my conflict of interest) 23:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

Hi DGG,
I have a problem with an editor who keeps removing maintenance and merge discussion tags from two articles List of songs recorded by Zubeen Garg and Zubeen Garg. I have already reverted these edits once and issued a cautionary note on his/her talk page. But it appears User:Janiinsan is at it again and is also engaging in a little sockpuppetry. I am inclined to revert them again but some of the other edits may be legitimate. And just to make things even more confusing, when you click on the user's about page it takes you to the first of the two articles. Is the user the same person as the subject of the two articles? This looks like a mess and I wanted to get a second opinion before I start making drastic reversions and post a testy warning on his/her talk page. I guess my question is, what the bleep is going on here? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Festival of Neglected Romantic Music

This could use a rapid rescue. It was prodded, and I tagged it. Please help if you have time in the next week. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I will work on it at NYPL next Monday. DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Saturday: NYC Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon

Please join Wikipedia "Art and Feminism Editathon" @ Eyebeam on Saturday February 1, 2014, an event aimed at collaboratively expanding Wikipedia articles covering Art and Feminism, and the biographies of women artists! There are also regional events that day in Brooklyn, Westchester County, and the Hudson Valley. --Pharos (talk)

You did it again:

Feng Sushi. Incomplete AfD nom. Slow down, man! Ansh666 06:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stability of Boolean networks

Dear DGG: Thought you might be interested in the above discussion. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of YouNow

Hi DGG,
It looks like an article I created about YouNow has been deleted. The notice did not include any information about why. My first post in May 2013 was taken down by Jimfbleak. He gave me constructive feedback which I incorporated and the post was accepted and had been live for more than 6 months. Can you let me know what the new problems are so I can address them? Thanks. skeats111 —Preceding undated comment added 15:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It has not been deleted. I have merely proposed it for deletion in a procedure whereby it would be deleted in 7 days if nobody objects. Since it seems clear you are objecting, I will instead list it for a discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YouNow. Your contributions to the discussion will be welcome at that page. What will help most is additional references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases--if you can add such references, the article will probably be kept. Please note that accepting an article at AfC just indicates that the accepting editor thinks there is a reasonable chance the article will be accepted at AfD , not that they guarantee it. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Wei Yang Brian

Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wei Yang Brian, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I'd prefer it went through AfD given another admin accepted the article from AfC. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I looked at just a single, "sourced" paragraph of this thing; and I thereupon found that in reality about half of it wasn't sourced. I thus have reason to believe that the article is crap. -- Hoary (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wei Yang Brian. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Servisomething

Please let me know if I've managed to shed some light on that. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Leitrim Minor Football Championship

How does an article that was only created in January of 2014 have a maintenance tag from March of 2013? -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The Page Curation program seems to be defective. Please mention this at WT:Page Curation. DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Edward Pomorski

Tough. There's one book about him, but published by the organization he was involved in/founded, so COI. (Leon Kaźmierczak (1979). Dr Edward Pomorski, Prezes Honorowy Związku Polaków w Belgii. Union des Polonais de Belgique.) Outside that, as far as I can tell on Google Books, he has a two sentence footnote bio in a single reliable book: Jacek Leoński; Leszek Wątróbski (2006). Polska tożsamość na emigracji. Uniwersytet Szczeciński. p. 41. ISBN 978-83-7518-057-2.. According to it, he was the founder of said organization (roughly translated as in Free Poles Committee in Belgium, a Polish activists there, translator. Not much on Google; [29] and [30] mention his role in Polish education in Belgium. "the last Minister Plenipotentiary of the Polish Government-in-Exile" from the article sounds nice, but is most likely a bad translation, or at least I am not seeing anything related outside the fact that he was a "School Inspector" for said government during WWII. He published a textbook, maybe one more book, having difficulty veryfing if it was his. Uh. I don't think he passes notability, there just aren't sources to prove he did anything beside being a minor official and activist. Out of his orders, Polonia Restituta 3rd class seems most significant; I am not finding stats for how many were given during his time, but the modern Polish government issues about a 100 or so of this (3rd class) awards per year. I would argue against its notability (however, I am also quite annoyed recently by the claims that all Iron Cross holders are notable and the resulting spam of German Nazi soldier bios, so...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

agreed. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

AfD discussion

At your convenience could you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Dranias. The article's subject seems to be taking heated exception to my AfD nom. Am I missing something here? -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

done. As usual, I wrote my reply on the basis of my own take on the article, not what you & he had said. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I was asking for, a neutral second opinion in case I was pulling the trigger too quickly. Sometimes I do miss things. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Given the similarity between the two on the AfD when it comes to comments I get the feeling that this IP [31] may have a close connection with User:NickDranias. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow! This is fast turning into one of the more bizarre AfD discussions I have been a party to. Honestly when he posted his first heated objection, I wondered if I might have screwed up and missed something. But his endless stream of almost histrionic posts have left me firmly convinced that I got this one right. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the user's talkpage User talk:NickDranias he appears to saying that the policies do not apply to him legally, DGG do you have any advice on what to do on this one? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I brought the issue over to ANI - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't have bothered with ANI. The article can just be deleted in the ordinary way, with him saying whatever he liked under as many names as he cared to use. The best way to deal with sockpuppettry affecting a single discussion is to answer any genuine problems, do what is needed in the situation, and ignore the irrelevancies.

There is in fact a genuine problem with the word notable as we use it. People tend not unreasonably to regard someone saying they are not notable as an attack, even as libel. Even the clumsy "articleworthy" would be an improvement, because it clearly implies we're only concerned with the relative triviality of being or not being a suitable subject for a WP article, not true notability in the way everyone outside WP uses it. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that "articleworthy" would be an improvement.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• It's more of a mouthful, but I prefer "meeting Wikipedia's inclusion criteria". I get very tired of explaining to injured egos in every COI AfD what "notability" means in the idiosyncratic Wikipedia sense. "Articleworthy" isn't necessarily an improvement. The subjects (or their friends/family) simply latch onto "worthy" and take it as an accusation that the subject is personally unworthy. Voceditenore (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Term "notability" I concur with the most of the above comments. It's confusing and prone to cause offense among the uninitiated. If someone wants to make a formal proposal to change the term to something a bit more innocuous I would probably support it. Just drop me an FYI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

first thing is to have something to change it to: RfCs work better if the brainstorming is done first, not if the RfC covers multiple possibilities. To continue, let me modify voceditenore's to "Matching WPs inclusion criteria" DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• "inclusion criteria" can be either "prominence" or "notability".  How about "ArticleNotable".  Unscintillating (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The concept we call notability is not the only inclusion criterion. There are also all of the provisions at WP:NOT. (And one level further, NOT and WP:N tell us whether an article could be written about a subject, not whether a particular article should stay in WP.). DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Preston Long

Hi DGG. If you have the time, could you comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preston Long (or here on your talk page). I had originally !voted delete, but after fixing up the article and adding a few references, I'm rather sitting on the fence now. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. Those were pretty much my thoughts. Voceditenore (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

WIll you look into an ANI thread

Can you look at [[32]]. 24.9.243.108 (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I decidedI;drather comment. DGG ( talk ) 21:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Terra Technology has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

not worth rescue DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hubert Boczar has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

glad to see it will be gone. I appreciate these notices. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI

A proposal has been made to create a Live Feed to enhance the processing of Articles for Creation and Drafts. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to create a 'Special:NewDraftsFeed' system. Your comments are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

12th man assistance requested

I'm still learning the edit functions of Wikipedia so apologies in advance if the format/content of this request is out of whack!

I have been involved in some edits on the 12th man article but everything is heating up over there and I would like to ask for some help determining what may or may be appropriate with regards to content and response. A few months ago I was warned that I was engaged in an edit war which was true. Since then, I have attempted to utilize the talk pages first but am having difficulty with one specific poster and the revisions that he would like to make. I selected you for a request for assistance as it appears that you have special expertise in sourcing and the value/weight of various references. Much of the dispute as you will see is based on arguments/discussions as to what is or is not acceptable sourcing and how the information should most appropriately written.

No one involved in the current disputes with this article (myself included) are impartial. Instead we have a poster from a rival university and multiple posters from Texas A&M who are at odds over what information is relevant. It seems to me that it should be possible to acknowledge limited documentation of some claims while still acknowledging that these claims have been made. But I'm not certain that I have done a good job in explaining or justifying such a compromise in my talk page comments. I now have a poster who continually is suggesting that I go to the Texas A&M library and conduct research, with the implication that if I don't, then he is justified in using his suggested revisions instead. Again, it appears that you might have the background to make some true, non-biased comments and suggestions as to the best possible compromise and solutions. Any help or advice that you can offer is certainly appreciated both for the sake of this article and also for my own knowledge with regards to wikipedia policy. Macae (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I have read the article and looked at the talk page. Frankly, I don't see much difference between the versions. The only thing that is really necessary is to make clear that the state of things is not completely clear. My advice is simply to disengage. There are much more significant problems at thousands of articles. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Within the last day or two, there apparently have been several additional source files located that document some of the claims that were made. So hopefully, there will be even less areas of dispute going forward. Macae (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Harbans Singh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Faridkot and Khalsa College

Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Colin Johnson

Chung On Siew (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Meixian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

COI help

This guy/gal has pinged me a couple times. I honestly don't know if they are just trolling or if they don't understand. I'd rather not deal with it personally for... well... lots of reasons. I thought you might be willing to explain a bit to them. CorporateM (Talk) 19:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a little different than usual, because his request as a request is reasonable if he hadn't offered money; the subject is clearly notable, and there's a decent quality deWP article to translate, If he paid money for that one, they didn't do badly. Even the guy he paid 100Euro for the enWP didn't do badly for the money. I wonder who he is. DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That's good to know - I rather presumed the German one was crap, just due to the cost, but didn't really look at it. They kept pinging me asking about my pricing saying they wanted to hire me, but I shrugged it off. It is very unusual (and makes me uncomfortable) for companies to try to conduct business right here on Wikipedia.

Hey, do you have an interest in collaborating on Diners Club International? I'm trying to find an editor that wants to collaborate on it. I've just gotten it started on their origins story, which has a lot of contradicting versions, factual errors and whatnot. My draft probably needs some trimming, but I start most articles being too comprehensive at first as I get my arms around it. I have a COI. CorporateM (Talk) 14:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I will look at it, but I can't actually do much, because I am overwhelmed with trying to cope with AfC; even once we rescue what we can from the backlog, there will continue to be a much greater number of submitted articles than the few of us active there who know what needs to be done can do with sufficient care. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Live Feed to enhance the processing of Articles for Creation and Drafts

Whatever the outcome, things need to be sped up about how the new Draft mainspace can best be used by AfC who were the initiators of its creation. I also wholly concur with you that NPP is still very much in need of a shake up. However, and most importantly, I am seriously concerned - once again - with the Foundation's arrival on the scene before the RfC has even properly gotten underway, with a 'whatever the community decides what it wants, if it needs software tweaks we [the WMF] are not going to be in a hurry to consider it.' This reflects once more unfortunately, the Foundation's response to most, if not all, projects initiated by the community and I think they should stay out of it until at such times the community reaches a consensus and then, and only then, the actual technical details need to be examined. I'm also disturbed by their many claims to being the originators of such initiatives. Sadly, all this does is to reinforce the 'Us vs. them' dichotomy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

What we need to do is very simple: develop procedures that do not need the wmf. They have already done the one thing we needed, which is to establish the new space. We would undoubtedly develop better and more sophisticated procedures with their help, but we can also do something without them, even if it means doing some things manually. I've ben doing almost all my own reviewing manually in any case because I hate their templates. This will have the side benefit of not making it so trivially easy for people to start without reading instructions. We do need someone who really knows template syntax, (or possibly lua, but that's not limited to the WMF. We can simultaneously start removing procedures we do not want to use via MfD.

The process of RfC is not well adapted to developing complicated procedure with multiple options. That's why you haven't seen me there--I haven't the patience. Procedures are developed best by 1 or 2 people. But of course there's the incredible problem here of the difficulty in getting them accepted. The WMF is not the major obstacle--it's our colleagues. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Charles Fritz Juengling

Hi DGG. At your convenience could you take a look at Charles Fritz Juengling. It popped up on my NPP queue and I didn't think the subject was up to WP:N and WP:PROF. The creator disagrees. So I wanted to get a 2nd opinion before I pull the trigger on AfD. There are a lot of sources and maybe they add up to something that I'm missing. Thanks -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

As you observed, the wording of the article indicates good reason for doubt. The "book" listed is only his PhD thesis, but I need to check for additional publications, because I think the AfD will involve some considerable protest, even though the conclusion is fairly obvious. Similarly, Sybil Gibson Higley. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

OK I think I will pause on this one for a bit. I think I may have exceeded my weekly quota for epic AfD discussions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

ariel fernandez

hi I noticed that you have been looking at some of the same articles as I have.

• Epistructural tension
• Dehydron
• Ariel Fernandez
• Wrapping_technology
• Instituto Argentino de Matematica (this one is not bad)

A user "Ariel Fernandez" created some of this and heavily edited them; that user later created a sock account "Arifer" that was blocked; now there is a user named Haydee_Belinky who is doing edits like this; the account appears to exist solely to promote Ariel Fernandez. I have never dealt with something like this and don't know what to do. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this all together: I had not noticed them as a group. This is my old subject field of molecular biology, and I understand the work; though my detailed knowledge is not current, the principles are clear enough; I gather you also understand the subject field. The person is notable, and so are both the concepts of the dehydron and the related principle of protein wrapping or possibly target wrapping (which I think would each be a better name than wrapping technology). The references for the two concept articles are however almost identical, and so probably are most of the papers in the literature discussing them, tho I have only started checking. I am less certain that the concept of epistructural tension is notable, but it needs further checking. Unfortunately, the manner of writing and referencing is in effect confusing, because the references are structured in such a way that it is impossible to see who is the author and what is the exact title without looking at the article; nor is it clear without examining them which ones are primary research, which ones are reviews by Fernandez and associates, and which ones are outside reviews or outside editorial comment. At the least, some rewriting will be in order. Whether the two concept articles should be combined needs considerable thought, as would the question of which should be the title of the combined article; I'm going to bring it to the attention of some WPedians in the subject.

I know you saw the concept articles as promotion, and listed them for G11; I removed those tags because I thought the articles themselves basically informative. I think G11 goes by the effect more than the intent--we cannot easily judge someone's intent, and a person who intend to publicize something can effectively do so at by writing an absolutely neutral and helpful article on it, though of course they most often don't succeed in that. In any case, G11 is probably the most fuzzy of the CSD conditions, and on those fairly rare occasions where a CSD nomination of mine is declined, it's usually a G11 & I accept it as a valid decline if anyone sees it differently.

This is like the common situation where a contributor out to promote something tries to write as many articles on the same subject; very common examples are a company and and its CEO and sometimes also its product, or an author and his single book. If these are sufficiently important, the separate articles may be justified; much more often, the notability is marginal, & it's better to have one article--usually deciding on the basis of which one is the more likely to be expanded (which is generally the author, who may be expected to write more books if the first is successful; for an organization, it can be hard to specify--the person may head multiple companies in his career, the organization may have multiple ceos if it continues--the solution varies. I generally advise people in the situation to pick one themselves, on the basis that one strong article will be more likely to be kept than two weak ones. The present situation is not extreme -- the article on the person is relatively modest, and was so even before your good edits to it. There seems no clear reason why Fernandez could not have continued editing under his own name, if the account under his name is indeed him, and nota student or publicist. I doubt all the work is by a publicist, because the material is more scientifically literate than university press relations people usually accomplish. These could possibly be successive people and not puppets. The admin who previously pursued the sockpuppetry issue seems not to have been certain of the situation with respect to him, and neither am I. In any case, that side of things is not my specialty here, and in this case I don't think it matters much; I'd prefer to focus on the articles. (our attitudes towards COI editing seem to differ a little in general, but I doubt we would disagree on any clear-cut situation) , the general problem is not dissimilar to "good faith POV pushing", which is not something WP handles in a very satisfactory manner.

The first step is to ask the current editor to clean up the references to the proper format, which will make the situation more understandable. I will draw their attention to this discussion; and we will see what some other people who understand the subject think about it. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Where do you find the time?

You're the busiest guy I know. Anyway, I sent an AFC requester your way, you have looked at the requested article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael L.J. Apuzzo. You should consider volunteering for WP:OTRS, I would recommend you without hesitation; it's fascinating work ad you get to meet some really interesting people. My favourite ticket was from Ronald Neame. See you around the 'pedia, Guy (Help!) 00:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Wait, you are on OTRS! Great. I am really happy about this. Guy (Help!) 00:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm retired, & think of this as my 4th career. But even so I actually don't have the time to do everything I try--too much of what I do is done more cursorily than I would like, and I've completely given up the idea of doing substantial article writing. OTRS is one of the things I find time for only rarely, but I like to keep a finger in everything I can. DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Michael_L.J._Apuzzo#Michael_L.J._Apuzzo

If there is something that I can do to expedite this article to become published, please let me know. Many thanks for your time! By the way, JzG sent me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.120.4 (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I just gave you some detailed advice on your talk p. User talk:207.151.120.4. I would simply have fixed it myself, but I had difficulties rewriting some of the statements in the article, which were value judgements that would have had to be eliminated if they could not be sourced. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Please add this to your collection.

		The Original Barnstar
		The original barnstar. The one for old-school Wikipedians who defend the traditional values. I look up to you, and aspire one day to be as good as you. Guy (Help!) 01:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alois Locherer has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Worth saving--work in progress. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Added refs, linked to deWP, accepted. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/American Orthopsychiatric Association has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

needs further revision; worth savings. I've started work on it. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Crown Sydney

Hello. As this is now a contested PROD, I thought I'd let you know. Personally, I think this is a case of CRYSTAL as there doesn't seem to be any criteria for which this building would pass GNG at this time, given the fact that it doesn't exist yet. There's lots of coverage in the article now about the funding and construction of it, but that in itself doesn't make it notable. Would you concur with an AFD on this one?   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 16:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

needs editing for tone, but I have usually thought that if there is sufficient material on the planning of a really major project, the project can be notable as a project even if it never gets built. Considering the $1 Billion cost and the conspicuous location, I think it's major enough. I think it's reasonable that someone might look at an encyclopedia for it. The practical question is whether this might be better merged into Crown Resorts. I would not support deletion. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, since there's a Sri Lanka project listed on that page, it might be better suited as a subsection of that article for now. 65.24.59.12 (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)