User talk:DGG

Current time: 06:24,   August   3   (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

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)

basic rules about professors

All full professors at major research universities have sufficiently demonstrated that they are recognized experts in their subject to meet WP:PROF,and that WP:PROF is an alternative to WP:GNG. This is not a formal rule, but almost all AfD have had this result, except in fields where people here have doubts about the rigor, such as Education. (Major: in the US, Research Extensive in the Carnegie Classification + schools of similar rank; elsewhere, similar level). The rationale for this is that this is the basis on which people are promoted to such rank at such universities, and their judgment is more reliable than ours.)

For those at lower level institutions, this is not automatic, and the judgment goes by individual cases; the rationale is that in such institutions people are often promoted to this rank based on lesser accomplishments or for other qualities than being a recognized expert in their subject.

For Associate professors, automatic notability is not generally accepted, but is determined case by case. AfD results vary, but imho are usually reasonable. Personally, I think it could be extended to them on similar grounds, but this has not had consensus. ("Associate" = the US rank, and corresponding ranks elsewhere)

For Assistant professors, and corresponding ranks outside the US, it similarly goes case by case, and almost all AfD results have been "not notable". I agree with this.

Additionally, in the humanities most full professors in the highest level universities-- ,-- have written two or more books that have reviews in RSs for notability, and thus meet WP:AUTHOR. In the very highest level universities, this applies to Associate professors also. In other fields, where tenure usually depends on articles, not books, this doesn't work as frequently, but it sometimes does. Similarly, in the fine arts, many people at various academic levels will qualify by WP:CREATIVE.

For that matter, if one argued on the basis of the GNG, we could find for almost anyone who has published one or more important papers that the 2 or more of the papers referencing them contain substantial discussions of their work. This would require examining the actual papers, as the mere fact of being cited does not necessarily or even usually mean there is substantial discussion of the work. If I really tried, I could probably find this for many people even at the post-doctoral level. As this result is contradictory to most people's intuitive feelings on the appropriate contents of an encyclopedia (as distinct from a faculty directory), it shows imo the uselessness of the GNG in this subject. Before the WP:PROF standard became accepted, I did use it when it matched my intuitive view. If we return to GNG-worship, I will go back to using it.

Where the GNG is used here appropriately , is for people at any level whose work happens to strike the fancy of newspaper writers. I don't consider most such people notable as academics, but since the public will read the news accounts and want some objective information, it's reasonable to have the articles here. (I have sometimes objected to isolated news accounts as being based on PR if it seems really counter-intuitive). DGG ( talk ) 17:39, Apr 24. 2012

Admin review

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)

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

[2] 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)

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 your 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)

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 [3] 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)

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)

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 get 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 its 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) .

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)

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)

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)

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)

SIgns of promotionalism

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)

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 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)

Anthologies

G'day DGG,

Thanks for your comment We normally accept inclusion in anthologies as notability [4], 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)

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)

Opinion

Dear Sir. Long time no greetings! Thanks in advance for your view on this [5]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)

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)

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 think 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: 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 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)

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)

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 much 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)

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 better 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)

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)

Library holdings

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 [6]. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

WP: Exhibitions

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

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)

Thank you

Thank you for the effort you put into the close at WT:MOS#Bird common name capitalisation. There were a lot of words to read and to write. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike talk 03:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. It was a sprawling debate that'd been going on in multiple forums for so long it's hard to get a complete sense of it without a lot of reading. Thanks for putting in the time and thinking it through.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hear, hear! A very generous donation of time to get your mind round a long-long-long meandering debate with loads of distractions, and very brave to tackle one where people feel so strongly. I think you did an excellent job. --Stfg (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Right, you're off my Xmas card li- As much as I hate the result, I appreciate with the time and effort put in to possibly one of the most detailed closing rationales I have read. Despite apparent appearances to the contrary, I do support the idea of a global Manual of Style and conformity and am content to abide by the decision. Agree with the idea of some sort of bot to enact this. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I would have preferred a different outcome, but your arguments were really well-done and respectful to all positions. Kudos for you. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you, DGG. You've put a very contentious issue to rest, and probably for good. As ever, I'm flattered when people think I'm you. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

A very most excellent example of gentle mop-wielding, though I am sure that some members of the species Gallus domesticus minoris will consider that the end of the Wikipedia is nigh. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Ditto, I just wanted to thank you as well although I followed the discussion from a distance (I think it had more than enough active participants). Admins can get a lot of flack but when one takes on settling such a sprawling debate, knowing that no matter what one decides, there will be some very unhappy editors, I can only say thanks. And providing such a thoughtful rationale (rather than a sentence-long decision), is admirable and helps the decision "stick"...ambiguity would have only resulted in further challenges to your decision. Instead, if individuals do want to overturn this decision, they know that the burden of providing evidence resides with those wishing to change the status quo, and there has to be a substantial case to do so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I am hoping that you won't need to clarify that the consensus finding doesn't only apply to birds, but you might; there's a (smaller and quieter) camp who want to always capitalize moths/butterflies and dragonflies, and another in favor of doing the same with common names of British (and I think Australian) plants. The debate may have focused on birds, but that focus should be scene as license to capitalize non-bird species common names.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48

the opposition to this and the other parallel "Jews in .." articles that were deleted is so opposite to everything I hold important in the world, including the idea of a NPOV encyclopedia, that I can only with difficulty participate in these discussions. I have elsewhere ascribed it to the desire to hide the significance of Jews in the world to avoid arousing the anti-Semites. It is not possible to logically argue against fear and irrationality. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a note

I don't think I did justice to your very acute wake-up comments at the AfD, particularly striking because, in the drift towards uniformity, you took a stand marked by complete independence of judgement. Deeply appreciated. When I read, particularly,

There is no reason why anyone--in particular any Jew --should find anything shameful about the association of Jews and Communism in Russia, except the inability to foresee the future.

I thought of Vasily Grossman's outstanding Life and Fate, which manages, other than the direct horror of the context, to write astonishing vignettes that embrace all the complexities of identities, Kalmuck/Tartar Jewish swept up in the Communist cause, with, among comrades, the various prejudices, ethnic/antisemitic, coming to the surface, only to be talked out. 2% of the officer class of the Soviet forces that effectively won WW2, despite our films and lore, were Jewish. The great vice of superficial eyes is to judge with the facile wisdom of hindsight while ignoring the hard and sometimes tragic options fronting real people in earlier generations (it's true, for me, also of 1948). After the trench warfare attritions and military command's quasi genocidal military tactics in WW1, choosing to be Communist was one of the few ostensibly rational or ethical options left, something events in Italy and Germany in the succeeding decade could only reinforce. Thanks, anyway, and sorry for this soapy intrusion.Nishidani (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

You may appreciate in connection with the novel the edition of his wartime notebooks,A Writer at War : a Soviet Journalist with the Red Army, 1941-1945 edited and translated by Antony Beevor and Luba Vinogradova. For another account of the appeal & disappointment of Communism, see the final volume of Victor Klemperer's diary, The Lesser Evil DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Help with something?

Hey DGG- I was wondering if you could help give your input in something I'm trying to propose. Basically what I'm trying to do is add something to WP:NOT about articles claiming their topic to be the first of their kind, a pioneer in a specific field, or so on without any coverage to show that this accomplishment is automatically notable. Some of the arguments I've made in the proposed section come across a little vague and I've done a little TL;DNR in the comments section trying to explain what I'm trying to get across: basically that we've had a lot of people whittle down genres and accomplishments to where it's easy to claim that they're first but not show anything to verify that it's notable or even really true. It's at Wikipedia_talk:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Another_argument_to_add.3F, if you're interested. You're fairly concise in your arguments so if you could find a better way to phrase this and make it clearer, I'd be all for it. I know it could sound contradictory to some things in places such as WP:AUTHOR, but mostly it's just that I'd like something to point people towards when they say that someone should be kept without having the coverage to prove their claims about being a rare example or pioneer in their field. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

it is a matter of judgment in any particular case, and judgment around here is spectacularly inconsistent. I'm particularly concerned about the articles relying on first of a particular nationality or in a particular locality to do something. Perhaps the best approach to this is the one you suggest: it can be a very difficult thing to prove, and even ordinarily "reliable" sources like newspapers are not very reliable about this. I'll comment. (But where there is no source at all, it's easy: WP:V prevents us from including the claim at all.) DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Questionable notability page for WikiProject:Women Artists

Hi! Here you go Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_artists/Notability_concerns. SarahStierch (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey!

Hi, David,
It was a pleasure to meet you, face-to-face, and hear your presentation. Are your slides posted on the Wikiconference page? I'm really interested in the stats you shared about the state of AfC in 2007 vs. 2013. I think it's so important to be aware of the changes occurring on Wikipedia as it evolves over time in order to gain an accurate long-term view of where things are headed. Thanks again! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#AFC Backlog Drive

Hey DGG, since you gave that talk at WikiConference USA, I think my recent post to the WPAfC talk page is relevant to you. I offer some concerns about how reviews are being done and whether the processes we've instituted are really doing the work we want them to do. Blurpeace 19:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I did comment, tho perhaps I may have been a little over-enthusiastic. DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Possibly of interest

If I remember rightly, you're at the Lincoln Center library? Would you be interested in helping us get an article on Benjamin Steinberg? He has an NYT obit (which I cannot read in full right now; I'm hoping they will let me see it in July) and a short AP obit, and according to his daughter there is oodles of material at Lincoln Center. See User talk:Yngvadottir/Archive 6#My father, Benjamin Steinberg; Xanthomelanoussprog and I gave her some help with Symphony of the New World and that led me to the conviction that we need an article on him. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Ill get to it , but it may be a week or so. DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It can definitely wait that long :-) She mentions her intention to be at the library during a week in July. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

) 

Want to collaborate on an essay for Wikipedia space?

Spotted your remark that it took about 6 months to learn to edit here, and was inspired to start an essay, Getting through the beginning stages of editing .... Want to collaborate on making it into an essay for Wikipedia space? Djembayz (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look--- of course, i meant it takes 6 months to learn most of the aspects of not just editing, but of working here in general, including effectiveness in discussions. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Self/vanity publishing

David, could you perhaps have a look at this? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I commented, and will follow it up. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 19:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Review

Hi DGG, if it isn't a bother, could you take a quick look and review - Robert E. Olds, Joseph P. Cotton, Marcus M. Haskell, Osgood T. Hadley and Henry A. Hammel These are my first five article creations, I'm in the process of creating rest of the missing Civil War recipients of the Medal of Honor. There seems to be quite a backlog at New Page Patrol. Regards,  NQ  talk 22:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

1 point: in addition to saying in a general note that the material is copied from the US govt site, it's best to indicate by quotation marks exactly what has been copied--is it just the quotation in the box? then add it in the footnote there. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Only the MOH citation is copied verbatim from the Public domain material. The general note added is a template {{ACMH}} . I am not sure there is a parameter to include exactly which portion is copied.  NQ  talk 02:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I will find a way to do it. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Detecting copyvio

My approach to copyright is not to rely on google, but to check the person's web site, and any other posssible relevant external link or reference. In particular, many universities use noindex on the web sites, or on the portions of it which is a people directory. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Draft:David E. Sellers

There multiple ways to solve such a problem. Yours leaves the copyvio in the edit history. Since this is a draft article with a single author, there is no problem with deleting the draft, having the author get the text refunded via email, and then have them report it without the copyvio. There is also no problem (if the editor logs in before it is deleted) having them make an edit to restore a version before the decline was made, with the copyvio edited out, and then revdeling the in-between versions.

Either way both preserves attribution, and removes the copyvio from the edit history. You way leaves it in. I've been scanning large numbers of draft articles for copyvios, and G-12'd over 100 of them with various levels of problems. Out of the half-dozen or so admins who've taken action on them, you are the only one with this particular solution to the problem, and the only one who seems happy leaving the copyvio in the history. Revent^talk 16:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The choice of which way to solve problems of copyvio is not purely a question of administrator idiosyncrasy, but involves many factors.

The general principles are found in both WP :COPYRIGHT and WP:Deletion Policy and its subpages. First, Deletion policy is that "Reasons for deletion [are] subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page)" and "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page" Section 3.1 for copyright violations says "remove the violation if possible, or edit the page to replace its entire content with {{subst:copyvio|url=address of copied material}}. For blatant, whole-page copyright violation, you can simply tag it for speedy deletion with {{db-copyvio|url=...}} after checking that there are no non-copyvio versions in the page history." Second, with respect to copyvio, WP:CSD says it applies to "Text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained. For equivocal cases which do not meet speedy deletion criteria (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, where free-content edits overlie the infringement, or where there is only partial infringement or close paraphrasing), the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with {{subst:Copyvio}}, and the page should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. " Third, at WP:COPYVIO, it says "Handling of suspected violations of copyright policy depends on the particulars of a given case" It then says "If you have strong reason to suspect ... some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known. "and " If all of the content [is]... a copyright infringement or removing the problem text is not an option because it would render the article unreadable, if an older non-infringing version of the page exists, you should revert the page to that version. If there is no such older version, you may be able to re-write the page from scratch, but failing that, the page will normally need to be deleted. "Fourth, looking at WPRevision Deletion, one of the permitted uses is for "Blatant copyright violations that can be redacted without removing attribution to non-infringing contributors. If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used. Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion." The word "Blatent" is obviously open to interpretation, but a small paragraph copied from the persons website is not "blatant".

:I interpret this as follows:

I. removing a whole article because a nonessential part is copyright is not supported by policy. None the less, policies have some flexibility, and admins sometimes do that, and I have done something a little like it on occasion, based on the phrase in G12 "when there is no non-infringing content worth saving". If the articles is inherently promotional, I generally delete saying both G11 and G12, and I think of "entirely promotional" in a more more flexible way when there is significant copyvio. For articles, I'll sometimes do the same with A7/G12. For draft where A7 does not apply, and which the person has been repeatedly submitting without improvement, I'll try to find some reason. I will be more flexible in helping those.

II. As a general rule there is no reason to revision-delete, as long as the copyvio text is removed from the current version. It is not even permitted unless the violation was "blatant".

I intend to pursue both of these issues elsewhere (with some of the admins, at WT:CSD, and, for any worth the trouble, deletion review); the primary fault is with deleting administrators who exceed policy. From a quick look, some of your deletion nominations seem reasonable, some less so. (It's fair to tell you I intend to look more carefully at all of them, past and future) I just deleted one where the essential material was in fact copyvio. I follow policy, and I try to use a middle-of-the-road interpretation. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to respond to this in bits, since you wrote a lot. First, you say that it's not a matter of administrator idiosyncracy... it shouldn't be, but unfortunately it is. I've talked with several administrators about going this, and gotten varying responses depending on who I was talking to. I'm just trying to help with the backlog by dealing with the huge number of copyright violations, and other easy speedy declines as I see them.... it's not my favorite thing to do, and honestly, I would rather be working on other things, but I'm trying to help, and I'm talking with other people as I do so, not just randomly deciding what I think is right.

To be honest, though, I think your interpretation of what is a 'blatant' copyright violation is, as you describe it, far too lenient, and based on your interpretation of Wikipedia policy rather than the legalities. Not that I am claiming to be a copyright lawyer, but yes, a single paragraph copied verbatim is blatant copyright infringement, and it's illegal. Even a single sentence can be a copyright violation, if it is verbatim, or if the rewording is minimal (like changing a pronoun to a last name) and preserves the structure of the original. "Blatant" in this context means, or at least should legally mean that the copyright violation is obvious, not that it is extensive. If a sentence is phrased in a way that is 'creative', as opposed to one that is the only obvious way to make the statement, then you can't simply copy it. It's wrong.

You need to read, very, very carefully, the last paragraph of WP:COMPLIC, and the Wikipedia article on Substantial similarity. To be specific, "Under the doctrine of substantial similarity, a work can be found to infringe copyright even if the wording of text has been changed or visual or audible elements are altered."

You are right, however, that I have probably G-12'd drafts that 'could' have had the material removed, and as it stands now, after more discussion with other admins, I'm actually being more lenient about doing so. This has nothing to do with your understanding of if it's 'blatant', though, it's merely that my previous 'suspicion' that an attribution stated by a hyperlink in the edit summary is sufficient to fulfill the CC-BY-SA licensing requirements is correct, and so the problem can be 'fixed' by an edit followed by revision deletion. Previously my understanding was that such a deletion would have to be done after the 'author' made an edit, so as to preserve attribution, but with links in the edit summaries that's unnecessary. I'm now only G-12ing things where there would basically be nothing left after removing the copyvio, or where the text would be useless, and instead getting them fixed by revision deletion.

Your idea that leaving the copyright violation in the edit history is ok is simply wrong, for a couple of reasons. One, the copyvio could be restored by a later edit, and second, the WMF distributes database dumps that include edit histories. Distributing them with included copyright violations is just as illegal as leaving them visible. I suggest that if you think I'm wrong here that you ask a WMF lawyer. I'm quite certain you'll find I'm not.

As far as you 'reviewing my CSDs more closely,' I have no problem with that, and have in fact said before that I hope that admins do look at them closely before actually deleting them. Not that I doubt my ability to tell what is a copyright violation, but everyone makes mistakes. If some admin is just approving G-12 CSDs without looking at them, they should be yelled at. Revent^talk 17:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Stale AfC , recreated directly in article space

Hello, I am not sure what should be done with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Teodoras Daukantas. The user had gone ahead and created Teodoras Daukantas directly in article space. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom, I see nothing wrong with the article. As a Minister of government, he's clearly notable, and the article has sufficient documentation, tho not expressed as formally as we would ideally like it. It's considerably better than the AfC submission, so the afc process was successful in getting a decent article, even if the procedure used was a shortcut. I've redirected the afc to the article. (It could equally well simply be deleted, since the new article is essentially independent--we don't really have an unambiguous procedure for this.) DGG ( talk ) 09:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

thanks, I was not sure if there was some standard merge / redirect / delete that was followed.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

If it is clear it's a precursor, we sometimes redirect to the article talk. If they're independent and the text can be used to fill in the article, we can merge in one of several ways. There's no standard. DGG ( talk ) 15:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

New York Public Library for the Performing Arts

Hi, are you still serving as WIR there? Was a project page ever set up? In any case, please update outreach:Wikipedian in Residence. I'm a WIR too now, so it's useful to know of past experience. :) Nemo aka Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stephen M. Sheppard and revising faculty bios

One more distinguished professor for you, DGG. I added a Google Scholar Report, which is rather low. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Basic cleanup steps for professors (and much of it applies to all bios):

1. Remove all "Professor", "Prof.", "Doctor" and "Dr.", Ph.D, or M.D except in the lede sentence or as actual titles of positions or degrees. For every use of first name alone, substitute the last name. For every use of full first and last name, substitute the last name, except in the lede sentence or if needed to avoid confusion.
2. Then, for every use of the name more than once a paragraph at the most, substitute "he" "she" or the equivalent.
3. remove all adjectives of praise: famous, renowned, prestigious, world-wide, transformative, seminal, ground-breaking, etc. referring to either people or institutions or discoveries; even "well-known". In all of these, nothing needs to be substituted.
4. Consider replacing "expert" with "specialist". Replace "across" with "in" or, if documented, "throughhout" Remove all similar jargon. "
5. "best-selling" etc. needs to be justified by a third party quotation. Just remove all these throughout the entire article, or add a {{Fact}} "First" similarly needs a third party source.
6. Move the most important factor of notability to the very first phrase of the first sentence where nobody can miss it: not "A.B., an expert in something, who has taught at Wherever for 23 years, is the Distinguished Professor of" , to "X, the Distinguished Professor of ... at Wherever, is a specialist in something....
7. Remove complicated sentences of birth place and date to the section of biography. The lede sentence should just have the dates, eg: "(born 1945)"
8. If they have written books and work in the humanities or history or Law, or any field where books are the main factor of notability, remove journal article section entirely. If there's a section on conferences, etc., remove it in all cases.
9. The list of degrees received and dates is critical information. It goes in a section labeled ==Biography==, right after the lede paragraph. If you find it at the end, the article was unmistakably written by a press agent, and will need careful checking for copyvio.
10. In fact, the likelihood of copyvio is so great that I usually prefer to rearrange or alter most of the text.
11. Books need to be sourced to Worldcat, not Amazon or the publisher. Bio facts are sourced to the person's official page at the university. These should all be formatted as references, so there will be a conventional reference list DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just noticed this useful list. One comment (in case you've got this chunk of text ready to paste in elsewhere in future): in point 7, about dates, I think the standard format for the lead sentence is "(born 1948)" not "(b. 1948)". Your point 6, about moving the main claim to notability to the very start of the article, is really important - so many poor articles start by telling you the subject's parentage or other irrelevancies so that you have to plod through a lot of verbiage to find any assertion of notability. PamD 14:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

fixed, though perhaps even just the date is clear enough for everybody. thanks. (as for 7, press agents writing an academic cv tend not to realise what we consider the key factors. Hidden in the last paragraph among society memberships, will sometimes be "National Academy of Sciences". DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Notable?

Georges Abrial: No sources here. No sources in French Wikipedia. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It should be extremely easy to add sources, and I see there are some at the ruWP article DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

General advice, repeated here so it will be visible:

Please don't be deterred by the bureaucracy here. This is after all a very large enterprise, with thousand of people working independently at the same time with almost no formal coordination, almost no supervision, and very little training. to help deal with it, a number of formal conventions have been established. Unfortunately, the sort of people that like to work here are exactly the sort of people who are not very skilled at drawing up formal conventions or procedures, and the net result is a mass of partially contradictory instructions and rules, some important, some not; some enforced, some not. The response to a rule that has proven impractical is usually to add several supplementary rules, rather that to revise the original, and after 11 years, it produces quite a jumble.

Some of us find it fun to manipulate the rules to get a reasonable result. But the true purpose of working here is to build an encyclopedia, and I will normally try to get to a reasonable result as directly as possible. Some people though insist on their interpretation of the rules regardless of the result, and I have also become rather experienced at countering them in their own frame of reference when necessary. As I'm pretty much an inclusionist on most topics, I tend to concentrate at AfD and AfC.

My advice is to concentrate on providing good sourced articles. If you want to learn process, don;t be afraid of making errors. There's no other way to do it, because you need to learn not the letter or the rules, but the way we use the and the accepted boundaries. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Kilroy was here —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 19:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Eyes needed please

Eyes needed please on Gernatt Family of Companies and Talk:Gernatt Family of Companies. An editor has taken the time to trim some of the bloat of the article, and what's left is not very notable. Another editor has brought up the notability issue on the Talk page, but the discussion has been aggressively and voluminously hijacked by the article's creator. Could you take a look and see if a notability tag (or an AfD) is in order? Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I took a look. The way to decide notability is to bring an AfD and see what the consensus is. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:The Scientific World Journal

David, both sections on this talk page could benefit from your input. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

commented there. DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Several ongoing discussions could use your input

Hi David, please see Talk:Academic journal#"Usually" peer-reviewed? (triggered by Template talk:Infobox journal#"peer reviewed"), Talk:Predatory open access publishing, and Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#List of scammy academic journals. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Civility

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Civility. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Idea

see [7] Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I've commented. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Congrats

Congratulations on your election to the Arbcom, DGG. Well deserved. - NQ (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, welcome aboard. NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"a Checkuser, which I am not" - Well, you will be soon. Congrats! Altamel (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Mazel tov! HG | Talk 07:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether to congratulate or console you, but I am glad that you were elected. Thank you for volunteering for this difficult, yet critical, work to keep the project running. -- Avi (talk) 07:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I came also for congratulations! So far arbitration was (for me at least) a synonym for waste of time, and ideally it shouldn't even be needed, - let's work on that ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Well done - highest number of positive votes shows your wide-spread respect. PamD 10:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• It's going to suck you absolutely dry for contributing anywhere else, but I can't think of any one more suited to the task of Arbitrator. Thank you for running for election and thank you in advance for all the good work you will be doing there. Warmest regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Coming off my wikibreak to say congrats. I'm confident you will do good things. I'm also confident that Kudpung is correct; it will be an all-consuming and thankless task for the next two years, but my impression is that you were ready for a new challenge, and I know you are fully capable of handling it. Farmer Brown 2¢ 12:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Congratulations and good luck. You're one of the people on Wikipedia I have always respected greatly, and hope the other great work I've seen you do translates well to ArbCom. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Take it easy, please. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Congratulations DGG :) –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Congratulations DGG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Wishing you all the best during your time on ArbCom. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Another voice to applaud your success in the recent popularity contest. I hope you find your new role satisfying and may it bring you contentment. Dolescum (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
• And another - it seems to be less of a nightmare job than in the past, but take it easy. Johnbod (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
• So cool. Congratulations. JSFarman (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
• Congrats my friend and mentor. I totally missed the elections or you could totally have counted on me for a Support. Happy HOlidays StarM 01:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Induction to the 2015 Arbitration Committee

Congratulations on your success in the elections and welcome onto the 2015 Arbitration Committee. In the next few days we will induct you and the other new arbitrators. Please email arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org from the email address you wish to use for registration on the various private wikis and mailing lists. Please also indicate which, if any, of the checkuser and oversight permissions you wish to be assigned for your term (if you don't already hold both).

Over the coming days, you will receive a small number of emails. Please carefully read them. If they are automated registration emails, please follow the instructions in them to finalise registration. You can contact me or GorillaWarfare (the designated newbie contacts) directly if you have difficulty with the induction process. Lastly, you must identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to being appointed. Please promptly go to the Identification Noticeboard and follow the instructions linked there if you are not already identified.

Thank you for volunteering to serve on the committee. We very much look forward to working with you this term.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK [•] 08:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Now just waiting on you, DGG, if you wouldn't mind emailing as soon as possible! Best, AGK [•] 00:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

email mail sent. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

If it is permitted, and I know some initiation ceremonies by definition require an oath of secrecy, it might be nice if you can tell us what all is involved in the formal initiation ceremony. John Carter (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Where should I aim the magnetic pulse field at to help jump start the Inductor? /silly Hasteur (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Congratulations and best wishes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Congrats on winning the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Ditto! --EEMIV (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Two professors

Hi DGG. Here are two drafts about professors: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Lowry and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Josef Bigun. I am not going to have time to work on them - my Anne Delong/Afc submissions for improvementlist is getting too long and they would need to much work in areas about which I know nothing. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Long's [8] shows authorship of major textbooks, Bigun is named chair and IEEE Fellow. It can be enough to remove the inappropriate lists of publications from Bigun and ck both for copyvio in Google and on the university web site. I'll do it. It's better to rewrite in standard format, but not necessary--I have sometimes been letting that go, for if something is notable and non-copyvio and non-promotional and readable, it's good enough. However, I understand about backlog; yesterday I deleted as copyvio an obviously notable person that I would previously have rewritten.

Looking at your list, I see I too have had doubts about how to handle many of them. I will however go through it also. OK if I mark what I do? My (several times longer) list is currently off wiki--I may put it on if I can think of a simple way to do it.

But we need to recruit someone else also--I expect to have substantially less time for this over the next 2 years. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead an add anything you want, or delete if you find a copyvio or something. I have been trying to keep the list short by moving anything finished to User:Anne Delong/AfC content rescued from db-g13, and you'll see that I have been noting ones that were handed off to you or others. I have also deleted a large number from my list and let them go for one reason or another. I think 550 saved articles plus a whack of content merges is a good start. I know Rankersbo has been working on some of these too, and a few others have stepped in occasionally, but you are right - I thought it would taper off after a while, but there are so many old ones that keep reappearing because no one has had time to work on them. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Not that nobody has had time to work with them, but that very few people are devoting any time at all to them. 100 people each doing 1 a day would remove the backlog. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

RM Hogg

Hi DGG, wanted your input on an academic without an article, RM Hogg (Scholar search). First author on several highly cited books (G Scholar h-index ~17), but otherwise no specific accolades. czar ⨹ 16:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

h index is useless in the humanities--it is only applicable to fields where notability comes from the writing of articles. Google Scholar is not of that much help, but the thing to look for in GS is materials that are very highly cited, which usually do show notability. It seems he is the the editor or author of some major works. The best database for a quick check in the humanities is WorldCat,[9] and this confirms it: he is the editor of one volume of the major encyclopedic history of the English Language, the co-ed of the standard one volume work on the subject, & the co-author of the major work on the Grammar of Old English, and a good deal else. Next step is to find his academic position, which from the LC authority file [10] was University of Manchester , and gives his north and death dates. There will almost certainly be major obituaries and the like. First place to look is TLS. One of the VIAF subpages[11] give a ref to the Guardian obit, with a quote, Sept. 20, 2007. This information alone is enough for an article stub. (I've gone into the details as an example of the way I check these things) DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for an amusing article. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks; but which? DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You're not going to believe this but ...

Gernatt Asphalt Products, Inc. just got added to wiki. Even after your two warnings last month: [12] and [13]. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I redirected. I can not take admin action here, so if there continue to be problems, unless some other admin chooses to act, it will be necessary to take it to ANI. DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. I reverted the promotional mentions the editor added to the rest of wiki after (re)creating that article. The article (re)creator, Daniellagreen, has created 13 articles/templates on the Gernatt family, 7 of which have been AfDed. Softlavender (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Of possible interest

I've been puppy-guarding a few articles related to a very persistent set of COI accounts, but have since then acquired an IT security client and most likely will be working with another one within a month or two, so I don't think it is appropriate for me to be involved anymore since the article is on an IT security company that may compete with them.

If you have an interest in picking up where I left off, the details are available here. Or if not, well, oh well. CorporateM (Talk) 01:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I've seen them, and will try to organize. I've said elsewhere that wiring articles on a company and each of its products is a pretty sure sign of promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification Requested on Copy and Paste Articles

To what degree is it permitted to create an article that is entirely, or very near so, a direct copy and paste from a single source now in the public domain? -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, it is permitted, but it has to be specified exactly what part is taken from the source, and future edits must keep this distinct. Some of our templates, say "some or all" has been taken from particular source. In my opinion, this is inadequate attribution. Exact quotation marks or some other equally clear indication is needed. There are I believe several thousand articles in this unsatisfactory sate, and as editing continues over the years, the result is very confusing both in terms of attribution and in terms of keeping material up to date and not based upon totally outdated views. This has bothered me since I've come here, but it hasn't bothered enough others to make any progress.

The real problem is not just attribution; the more insidious problem is accuracy. The article you cite on Charles, Cardinal of Lorraine (1524 – 1574) shows this. The source, the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia is accurate as a summary for the facts as known at the time, but was never known for balance in the coverage, or for clear NPOV interpretation, and lacks adequate explanation of what to them was fundamental (That does not mean I do not think highly of it for many purposes--I even own a printed set.) The knowledge of sources, the interpretations of scholars, the interest in particular aspects, will be very different on every topic, no matter how old, from the state of things 100 years ago; even when religious orientation is irrelevant, cultural bias is usually present. (I do not know enough about this particular topic to give a detailed critique, because my own knowledge of the period in France is based primarily upon historical fiction, whose biases can be very similar to that of outdated histories.) DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that summary. It confirms most of my concerns and adds a couple. I am unsure how much I can correct, but I will work on it a bit and add some tags as needed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Crime Opportunity theory

Hello DGG. This article was pasted into mainspace in 2012 by the same editor who created it, and the only other contributor to the draft is you. Perhaps you could check to see if any of your edits would benefit Crime opportunity theory, after which this would be a G6 . —Anne Delong (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll get there tomorrow--thanks. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

AfC

I expect you've noticed how I have practically stopped participating in discussions on reform of AfC. I've done a lot for that project, such as coaxing the 'draft' mainspace into existence and getting a set of competency criteria established for reviewers, and vetting 100s of G13, etc., but there comes a time when I lose interest in projects that have become basically a lot of talk with nobody listening. In contrast, there's nothing wrong with the NPP system, in fact it's a brilliant piece of engineering. The only downside to NPP is that in spite of being by far the most important new-article filter of all, totally ironically it has no recommended levels of experience for patrollers at all, no work group, no mother project, and no interaction whatsoever between the individual patrollers. That's why it's often called the lonliest maintenance corner of Wikipedia - and that's why the qualty of rewiewing there is pretty awful, and has a backlog of over ten thousand pages.

So at NPP we're still stuck with a lovely suite of tools and very few users with sufficient clue to use them. AfC on the other hand, although it has the 'Draft' namspace, has an incomprehensible mess of script which is a constant work in progress, a permanent stream of questions from users who don't know how to use it, raw newbies just hovering with their mouses over AFC Particip to add themselves as soon as their count reaches the magical 500, and programmers plying and vying for recognition of the best script; add to that some who with the best will in the world can't discuss things calmly.

The best solution would be to scrap AfC completely (you and I have discussed this before), merge AfC drafts into the New Pages Feed, add the AfC Helper Script's essential features to the Curation Toolbar, and create a software defined new user group for the reviewers. I've had several real life discussions at various venues with senior Foundation staff who all agree in principle that it is technically feasible and that it might ultimately be the best solution rather than reinventing a wheel for AfC. Ironically again, probably because there is no collaborative project surrounding NPP, it doesn't play silly stick-and-carrot games of backlog drives with users MMORPGing for barnstars and baubles. Such initiatives IMHO only invite more of the wrong people and reduce the quality even further.

Perhaps if my dream were to come true, some of the more reasonable AfC reviewers would migrate to NPP, and that would be a net positiver all round. I think I'm going to draft up a major RfC and challenge the broad community once and for all to offer their thoughts. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Of course it is feasible--we did most of it for years; it's just redefining the group. Do you see any continuing need for Draft space? Perhaps it can be a place not for new submissions, but to which articles. including some new submissions, can be moved for improvement. I'd suggest not a broad afc to gather opinions, but a focussed one on doing the change. I think AfC as it exists has very few supporters. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the only supporters of AfC are the 'programmers' who use it as their playground. Just to underline my comment above, hardly had I spoken, than we get this. I do think there is a very pertinent need for the 'draft' namespace. Although the vast majority of AfC submissions are junk, as you have seen more than anyone, there are some rare rescuable items among them; it's also the destination for articles created using the Wizard - where I believe most of the drafts come from now. The draft namespace alows IPs and and editors who are not sure of themselves to create an article that will be kind of 'peer reviewed' before going live. You've got mail. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

so would you then continue to feed the Article Wizard articles into AfC? If we do, and use it for peer review before going live, we will have precisely the current problems. I don't think the "vast majority" are unsuitable--tho perhaps one could say "unnecessary" I estimate that at least half would survive Speedy, and half of these AfD , even on first submission. That's a 25% yield. When we were using NP as the only route, we rejected about 1/2, either at speedy or prod or afd. The difference is that because of the desire to use WP for promotionalism, we're getting more useless promotional articles, because more people know about us. Their number will only increase in the future. (& they're encouraged because a certain number do manage to survive afd , often erratically ) If we raise our standards a little we can keep them out, but somewhere we will still have to do the work of keeping them out. DGG ( talk ) 09:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Just wondering...

...if you saw Draft:Antano Solar when you tagged Draft:Antano Solar John. It's not quite so blatant as the latter, which is why I didn't speedy it out of hand or even tag it myself; but I thought you might want to take a glance at it while it's still fresh in your mind. —Cryptic 00:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

thanks, I'll check. I should have searched, but we need a better way of automatically marking partial duplicate titles. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gospel According to the Mark of Silver has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Abandoned AfC drafts

I spent some time going through G13 eligible drafts today and was a bit disturbed at how many of them are notable (well over half). Since you are one of the few people who regularly work in that area, I thought I would ask you if this was normal or if the obviously non-notable stuff has largely been deleted already creating a biased sample in the remaining material. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It depends wether you mean clearly notable, or just notable enough to be likely to be found notable at AfD. And notability is not always the problem: there are those which are notable, but are so promotional that it would be more trouble to rewrite than the importance would justify. Then there are copyvios. Then there are the substantial number that have already been moved into mainspace. Looked at from the goal of rescuing everything possible, then there are probably well over half that could be turned into some sort of passable article; but there are probably only 1/4 that are passable as they stand or with minor fixes.

In the past, I accepted about 20% and postponed another 20%, in order to make reasonably certain nothing I passed would be rejected. (and so far, I think essentially nothing has been, except when I've missed an occasional duplicate under another name, & a few copyvios I didn't catch.) Now I'm trying to accept a somewhat larger amount. The main group that I don't want to accept but I don't want to se rejected are ones which look like they need careful checking for copypaste from sources I do not have available, or unreferenced articles on geography or the like which probably could be verified, but not easily. Some of these are detailed articles on narrow subjects, some are suspicious because of the manner of referring or indentation or line-width.

However, I rarely go thru a daily list unselectively. Each time I do this, I tend to be looking for something--often a topic I recognize. I also work on the lists of those declined for some particular reason. Sometimes I look primarily for things to speedy as G11 (I'm not sure anyone else is doing that in particular). I almost always skip athletes and popular entertainers unless I notice something obvious one way or another, as other people have a more reliable sense of importance here. I try to select ones that I more easily can handle among the people likely to be working on this: for example, book authors whose importance isn't obvious, or subjects that should be checked in other language wikipedias I can decipher. This sort of patrol of new submissions, either AfC or NPP, tends to become dull, and I try to vary it.

I'll try to take a look at what you worked on today--you could take a look at mine if you like. The move log is the place to look. But incidentally, I see I have been deleting many more articles and drafts than you--but then I sometimes want to conscious clear away the rubbish even if it will be deleted by G13 a little later on. Concentrating on NPP/AfC has been making me cynical, perhaps unduly cynical. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

My sample size was small, so I may have just had an unusually good sample, hence the question. I was mostly disturbed by CCDC47 which was essentially declined because the references weren't quite right and then untouched for the 6 months. CBS Watch was indeed unacceptable as it was written - an addition to being promotional-ish, the bad paragraph was actually a copyvio too. It was easy enough to fix though. The other two I delayed deletion on are (obviously) unacceptable as is, despite being notable. (And one of the deletes was notable, but a duplicate article.) ... I normally work the back of the AfC pending submissions. I'd say over half of those are acceptable-enough as is, but I'm easier on submissions than most. I always figured the oldest one were the toughest calls on average and the real acceptance rate was much lower because of obviously bad stuff being rejected quickly. (Although maybe not, I am always mystified at how many copyvios sit around for a month+, and usually they are not hard to spot - over half of promotional sounding stuff is copyvio too.) Thus, I was surprised I didn't see a lower average quality carried through to G13 candidates. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the oldest are those that are tough either because reviews don't feel comfortable either accepting or declining, or because they take some specialized knowledge. The problem with delayed deletion is it comes back again after 6 months--I used to do this a lot, but now I try do it only when I'm feeling really rushed, like tonight. So details tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/cultural identity theory has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  ( talk ) 06:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ameen Albert Rihani

Hello, DGG. This submission has a lot of information (maybe too much, and I already removed a list of conferences at which he "recruited" staff). The references aren't on line, and I can't see a way to determine if he's notable. I know that you have said to use WorldCat, but after multiple tries it never gives me any useful information beyond a list of books and which library closest to me has a copy. Maybe you can do better. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I made a further cut, and I may do further. For this culture area in the humanities, WorldCat is as you found useless, and there is no replacement. I think the only way to avoid cultural bias is to be liberal in accepting. But there is another problem. The text contained the words "back to top" and the end of several sections, which is an almost invariable sign of copypaste, in this case from his online cV, which I will try to find. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thought you should know that this user is now at WP:AN claiming you are harassing them. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Delayed-maturation theory of OCD has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Douglas Harper

Me again ... I added some references to this one, but the text seems a little polished. Google doesn't find any copypaste, though. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

next place to try is his university, especially when the article does not give a link to his web site. It's not copied from anything I can find there, and, curiously, it got the name of his chair inaccurately, and he uses a middle initial. It might be from a publisher-- One indication of that is the bold face for book titles, though that is not infallible. It might be from the IVSA, considering the wording of the section on it, but I can't find it on their web site. This is an example of where I'd think necessary to rewrite. I see you did some--I'm doing it more drastically. It is also an example of a prior incorrect AfC decline by a fairly experienced user who apparently did not think about WP:PROF. What is now necessary is to check the reviewer's other work. And thus the amount of work to do increases exponentially. One of the best reasons to immediately remove the entire AfC process is to avoid reviewer errors. If it had just gone to new pages, the copypaste would probably have been seen sooner. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Erik R. Peterson

Hello, DGG. I came across this old draft. It says he holds a named chair, but I can't figure out how or of this fellow fits into an academic hierarchy. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anne, while waiting for David, I'll chip in. He seems to hold a "named chair" in a think-tank, not a university, and thus I don't think that would give him an automatic pass per WP:PROF, although the think-tank is a relatively prestigious and long-established one. The articles on both the tank {Center for Strategic and International Studies) and the consulting firm he works for (A.T. Kearney) both show the heavy hand of COI editing as does his draft bio. In fact it has the typical mark of a piece of paid editing—springing fully formed from a "brand new" editor, including the infobox, full of PR-speak and perfectly formatted but "padded" references. If I were prioritising which drafts to rescue, this draft wouldn't even make the bottom of my list. But maybe that's just me. Voceditenore (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

he is in my opinion notable. though it's not obvious ow to show it. The publications are joint authorship, as is customary for such groups.

The article is of course a press release, as are almost all our articles of people with similar careers. My approach to them is usually to cut down on repetition, name-dropping, and adjectives, and arrange the bio in our usually sequence.

A much worse press release is the one on his organization. A very high level of puffery and name dropping. I remove somed of this, and am trying to figure out how much more to remove. I agree with Voceditenore that these are particularly bad examples. But I think the center is in fact important enough to fix. DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:RTI International

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:RTI International. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

AfC

Please weigh in here even if it's that last time you comment on AfC. I don't care if all said and done you might not even agree with me, but I'm just trying to drum some sanity into that project which is now deliberately burying its head in the sand and turning itself into a walled garden. You'll need to read the whole thread. It's not too long. I still have that April 2014 consensus as a trump card up my sleeve. -Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

why would I not agree with you on this--it's a basic step worth taking, which can be carried over to the combined NPP/AFC process when we finally remove AfC. DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

CorpWatch

Is this website considered a reliable source? (see here). CorporateM (Talk) 14:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC - Helper Script access

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Request on 14:14:48, 2 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Cameron Cunningham

• Cameron Cunningham (talk · contribs)
  • User:Cameron Cunningham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

17:36:59, 2 February 2015 review of submission by Bonquita.henessy

• Bonquita.henessy (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:ImageSource, Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi DGG, can you please tell me why my sources are not reliable? All my sources follow wiki source rules and I want to make my next submission approved. Please let me know which sources for the article you declined are bad so I know where to do more research. In addition, this article is not intended to promote this company...if you look at Perceptive Software, OnBase, Oracle, they provide the same information/format as the one I am writing for ImageSource, Inc. Please provide in depth details that will help me get this article approved.

Bonquita.henessy (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

First, and most important, if you are writing for the company as a staff member or paid consultant or any similar paid relationship, please be aware of our our rules on WP:Conflict of Interest. You must declare this. See our Terms of Use, m:Terms of Use Section 4, "Paid contributions without disclosure" . In addition , Wikipedia can not be used for the purposes of promotion-- we are not a directory. See also our rules on what makes an organization notable.

As the first reviewer also said, most of the references are not, as is required, providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Almost all are mere announcements, or minor awards, most of them very local. Being a business partner of major companies is not notability.

Signs of promotionalism include listing all your social websites, listing every possible business field in which your products can be used, using the register trademark symbol, and including not just the CEO in key people. In addition, when someone claims that their particular company or organization is appropriate for coverage here because the most famous companies in the world are covered, I usually think that this might indicates an intent at promotion, rather than providing the information a general reader might want to know. Once more, we are Not a directory.

The standard of acceptance at AfC is that the article would probably survive a deletion debate at WP:AFD. Based on my experience, it would not,without much more substantial content and sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

19:24:52, 2 February 2015 review of submission by Bonquita.henessy

• Bonquita.henessy (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:ImageSource, Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

DGG, please help me understand why my article I created is unreliable and is declined compared to articles if you search; Perceptive software, Onbase software, and oracle for example. I am not promoting this company I want to create this page to educate viewers the history of ImageSource only. I am not trying to sell or advertise. Please direct me in the right direction.

Bonquita.henessy (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

it is very rare that an unaffiliated person will write an article on a small company, though it can happen. Usually it's either the owner or his family or a staff member, press agent, paid writer, or consultant. If you are none of these things, I apologize for suggesting you are. In any case the article will be judged by the same standard. Haven't you understood my comment that the company is not Oracle, and is therefore not likely to have the same degree of reliable coverage? As for Hyland Software, it's ten times the size-- and I appreciate being referred to the article, for I just now removed some advertising, staff listing, overlinking, and trivial awards. And [:[Perceptive Software]] is also ten times the size--and again I thank you, for the article is equally promotional. I just removed some of it, but there's more to go.

I can understand that you may have been in good faith following their models, but did you not notice at the top of each the prominent orange notice indicating that each of them had been tagged as an advertisement, and also as having been probably written by an affiliated editor? From the looks of them and other such articles, either a good many promotional editors are copying each other very or the same group of promotional writers is extensively writing in that industry. (It's a little harder to see it, butte perceptive article had been earlier removed as non0notable. I think it might just pass now, after my improvements, as might Hyland, but I need to consider sending them for a deletion discussion. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

23:14:23, 2 February 2015 review of submission by TheosophyAtlantian

• TheosophyAtlantian (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:C. JoyBell C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not requesting a re-review, however, I would like to say that I disagree with you in your saying that the article I wrote reads like an advertisement. If this article reads like an advertisement, then that means you don't have any quality control reviewing your submissions to Wiki, because I have read a ton of small-minded Wiki articles that are the poster children for personal, edifying advertisements. As for your problem with "notability", well, why don't you check how many hits "C. JoyBell C." gets on Wiki! Because everyone in my university is asking about more information on her and she is adviser to a wide variety of very influential minds in this day and age. The information that I submitted in my article is a toned-down, mellow representation of facts. If you do your own research before being cynical, then you would find out facts for yourself and see that my article is not anywhere near "advertisement" sounding. Moreover, C. JoyBell C. is an Indie author, so how many Indie authors do you know are on CNN and TIMES Magazine with interviews that I can post to my article? I suggest that you get real. Wiki is outdated and people laugh at it for it's misrepresentation of most content. This is in fact one article that does not misrepresent. Have a good day.

TheosophyAtlantian (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It is just because we do have some sort of quality control that we try to weed out the promotional stuff. If you think that "almost unstoppable fervour and passion... a recognised household name, one now synonymous with wisdom, beauty, courage and inner strength; playfulness and childlikeness... adored by her fans from all walks of life... " etc does not read like an advertisement, you may be too close to the subject to be able to write about her from the neutral point of view that an encyclopedia requires. JohnCD (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

However, you are certainly right that we do indeed have a great many "poster children for personal advertisements" . These were either added in earlier years when standards were lower, or escaped quality control. At the very least, we don't want to add to them. We get about 1600 article submissions a day, and include about half of them, and screening this many is a formidable task for the very limited number of volunteers who work on this part of our many quality control processes. (there are even higher priorities than advertising, like removing vandalism, copyright violation, abuse, and personal information about private individuals)--all of this not just in new articles, but in the 100,000 edits per day to existing ones. The same volunteers are also actively engaged in trying to improve or remove the older unsatisfactory articles--my guess is that there are at least 5% that need to be removed or drastically edited--and consider that we have 4.7 million articles, that 10% amounts to a quarter million. If you care to list a few of the advertising ones you've noticed, I'll be glad to look at them right now, or you can place a line reading {{advert}} at the top and it will get added to the list of 16,000 being worked on. There is no subject so important that we will print an advertisement for it. DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

17:40:36, 3 February 2015 review of submission by Ocean Sanctuaries

• Ocean Sanctuaries (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ocean Sanctuaries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ocean Sanctuaries (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

No further reviews requested. You may delete this entry if desired. Sounds like your point is: try again once you're more well-known/famous and are being written about in third-party sources and the press. That may be a while. The entry was *not* designed as a 'press release, but to provide a 'look-up' source for the general public.

Thanks for your time anyway. No further revisions will be made to this entry. 

Ocean Sanctuaries (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

done . DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Roomi S. Hayat

Hi DGG, I've just thinned out some of the outstanding cruft at Roomi S. Hayat and generally cleaned it up a bit more. I was recently emailed by the main COI contributor there, who asked me to stop inserting 'wrong' information etc etc. I suspect we are about to get the biannual attempt to reinsert the fancruft and cult of personality type information we got rid of last time. Could you keep an eye on it as well? Regards. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 22:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I did some more touchups. I'll place PC I if necessary. BTW, ever think of becoming an admin? DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Erm, yes, more so these days. Only because there are quite a few technical things I could do with tools. Foam Concrete being a pertinent example. I guess I still feel a little apprehensive after my first attempt at RfA under my previous username. Mr. Stradivarius did offer to nominate me about 18 months ago (somewhere in in my TP archives), but I had no appetite for it then. I guess I just figured I'd wait until a couple or so existing admins thought I was ready and offered to nominate me. I have two remaining concerns about running: firstly, I have no GA or FA class work to my name. Secondly, I can sometimes be inactive for for a month of two due to real-world pressures. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 23:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just noticed this comment "I have no GA or FA class work to my name". That has never even remotely been a qualification for sysop. (In fact some users such as Carrite consider getting the GA and FA qualifications on an article an enormous time-sink.) I have no opinion on your qualifications for the job, but if that chimera is standing in your way, do not allow it to! Also, as long as you stay abreast of Wiki policies, having real-world pressures that take you away for such time periods should not matter either. Just my tuppence. Softlavender (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I never did any GA or FA myself either. I intended to, when I first came here, but I got involved in the opposite end of the spectrum instead (and I also find the GA/FA discussions not particularly satisfying.) It is however true that the simplest way to become an admin is to cover all the bases & so I think its the safest advice to give. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Haha, I love the Chimera comment :) I'm working on an article at the moment that I came across as a delisted GA, I'm hoping to bring it back up to listed status, and along with some other modest endeavours in the mainspace over the next couple of months I hope it will give me the confidence to run again. Thanks for you tuppence. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 09:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

AFDs and PROF

Thank you for more clearly defining the situation in your comments at a couple of the AfDs I recently filed. I just wanted to point out that many of these AfDs were made under the same understanding of what PROF said/meant. You have now clarified that, but I did not (and do not) intend to continue to nominate articles after getting it clarified. These were just already in the pipe, so to speak. Nearly all of the articles I have nominated over the past months were created by the same editor (under a couple different names, which are publicly linked). That editor is now desysoped and banned from BLPs specifically for poor sourcing practices and violating NPOV across a large number of articles and a long period of time. It has been a very lengthy process to attempt to unwind some of the damage, and I genuinely attempt to avoid collateral damage. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

OK., I understand. I won;t keep reminding you, I'll just !vote as I normally do. Thanks for clarifying. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I mentioned you at ANI. No worries, just that you had clarified this for me. Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Deprodding of [[:{{{1}}}]]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from [[:{{{1}}}]], which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! I appreciate that you've brought this up and I do hope that other people can add to the information about Esther V. Yanai. I do feel she is notable, however, with the land that is named for her conservation efforts and the award she has been given. ReachingtheStars (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll give it a while for people to find references before trying AfD. I would like if it could be shown that her career meets our requirements.Deleting an article is not the ideal outcome, but, alas, many years of experience have shown that nominating for deletion may in practice be the most effective way of getting it improved. It should't work that way, and I cannot defend our practices of not focusing on improving articles. DGG ( talk ) 09:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Monte Carlo Fashions Limited

Anilmehta9 (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC) Please see, I have edited the some content and already given useful resources.

For example: http://www.sebi.gov.in/cms/sebi_data/attachdocs/1405331158947.pdf

Request you to please review article once again.

Notability requires references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. You have one potential such reference, the Times of India article. It strikes me as somewhat of the character of a press release, where the reporter repeats what the owner of the firm chooses to tell them in an interview. It is of some significance that they chose to do the interview. It is not sufficient, and the other material is mere notices that they have raised money. A document such as the pdf you cite merely shows existence. We are not a business directory, as explained at WP:NOT DGG ( talk ) 15:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Anilmehta9 (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I will try to improve the article by following guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule.

Adler's Jewelry

Hello there, I am writing to request that you review the page for Adler's Jewelry again. I have added inline citations for the entire article and worked to neutralize the tone. Everything stated in the article as it stands is entirely fact. All of the information in the article comes directly from original historical documents, including passenger lists, naturalization records, and historic newspapers. This is how true historians work -- from primary, historical documents. There is no higher form of accuracy. Thanks for you help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livinghistorynola (talk • contribs) 17:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I will get there tomorrow DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I see you've rewritten it in mainspace Adler's Jewelry. But you need to see WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOTORIGINAL: true historians do work from primary sources, but WP is not the place for the publication of original historical research, which necessarily involves synthesis and interpretation. We do not have the capabilities to review it the way academic publishers do. (there are indeed some very highly qualified academic historians here, and a large number of very intelligent amateurs, but the basic rule here is that all editors are considered equal.) We instead base our articles on secondary sources, on the published works of the true historians, published in reputable journals or as books by reputable publishers. I'm not going to list it for deletion, but the present article is stretching the boundaries a little. DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

01:27:23, 5 February 2015 review of submission by Destony521

• Destony521 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kizawa Memorial Hospital (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear DGG: Thanks again for reviewing my article. I put a note at the top of the article but I just wanted to state again that I have resubmitted because I made changes as per the recommendations. I think the article is up to WP standards in its current state. Much obliged. -Dustin

Destony521 (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I will get there tomorrow DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Destony521 (talk · contribs), encyclopedia articles are written in paragraphs. They are not fact sheets. A list of all the routine departments of the hospital is not encyclopedic content. The ate are too detailed. Public transport is relevant for potential patients and visitors, not for WP readers in general. There are no sources besides their website and related ties. And, most important, there need to be references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. We do not automatically assume that hospitals are notable. see WP:ORG DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again. I will try to rewrite again focusing on adding some meat (paragraphs) and reducing the bones (lists). I have plenty of Japanese newspaper articles mentioning the hospital, but I thought the lists were more relevant to someone who might actually look up the hospital (a potential/current/past patient). Not to be contrary, but there are plenty of articles that are nothing more than glorified lists. But anyway, I appreciate your advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destony521 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Redlink

Can you peek at my notes about "personal names" linking at the WP:Redlink article. It still is confusing to understand. I am not sure if I am interpreting it correctly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I am going to take a stab at rewording it. It still reads that we should not have red linked names.

New articles

I was pleased to see comments you made recently about deletion proposals. Maybe there should be a minimum time for writing an article before it gets a delete notice attached to it (unless there is something seriously wrong). A warning early on would be OK though. best wishes Aaabbb11 (talk) 09:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

this has been proposed several times,but has always run into a problem with the mechanics. Extensive discussion is in the voluminous archives of WT:CSD. You might want to raise the question on that p. whether we want to try again, perhaps limited to A1/A3/A7/A10. G11 & the other G reasons are not suitable for a delay. But the problem with the mechanics is that we need a sure way of going back to them, because it's hard enough to go thru the NPP list once without missing anything. Merely a rule saying admins should not delete until after x hours would help, but experience has shown some admins will ignore such limitations when they think it's obvious, & I can't blame them much, because some A7s are indeed obviously hopeless from the start. DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for all the info. I'm pleased to know its been proposed before and won't worry about.Aaabbb11 (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Tony Horton (personal trainer)

Have you noticed that the Tony Horton (exercise instructor) article (previously deleted after discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Tony Horton (exercise instructor)) is back, under the new title Tony Horton (personal trainer)? I tagged it for speedy deletion (g4 – recreation of a page deleted after an AfD discussion), but it was said to be better than before and not just a copy, so the tag has been removed. —BarrelProof (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.]

• Draft:Kate O'Brien and the Fiction of Identity

• Draft:New York City Campaign Finance Board

• Draft:Palmer School of Library and Information Science

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bank Interest Rate Swaps
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Berrara, New South Wales, Australia
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brantwood Specialist School (2nd submission)
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Burial Rites (Novel)

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cambridge Medicine Journal
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carlo Vecce
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Centropa
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher Tsai
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Claude Houghton Oldfield
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Climate change in Kiribati
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Commanding generals of Fort Benning, GA
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Continuing Church of God
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Covered California
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CSIR-Open Source Drug Discovery
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CST Brands, Inc.
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cynthia Bir
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daily Punjab Times
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Fried
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Donald Gross
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Donor Committee for Enterprise Development
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dover Engineering Works
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Down and Back Companies
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dutton Hall Court, Cheshire
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Economic summary of the United States
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Gerhard
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Emyr Williams
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Environment Award for Children's Literature
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Evangelical Congregational Church of India
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Evolving networks

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/First Congregational Church of Oakland California
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frantisek Reichental
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fred N. Thomas Career Education Center Middle College of Denver
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Generator Pole Slip
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Geoffrey Wilson (author)
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Georgian Sinfonietta
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gwendolyn Yates Whittle
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hand weight
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hauptamt Dienststelle Heissmeyer
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Holiday Inns, Inc. v. 800 Reservation, Inc.
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/independent animation in the UK
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Isaias Gamboa (Costa Rican author)
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Issa Khalfan Al-Huraimel
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/James Goss
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jean Hewes
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jean-Philippe Lenclos
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jeff Howe (author)
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jodi Dean
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Leale
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jordan code
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joseph Salter
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Justice Laura D. Blackburne
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kavitaram Shrestha
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ken Rus Schmoll
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kenyan Crime Fiction
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Khushnood Nabizada
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/King's Gift College

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Latinist
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Liisa Ladouceur
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Louisville Municipal Boat Harbor
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Luis M. Rocha
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mangalappatti - Muthur, Vellakovil
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Martha Cecilia
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mary-Anne Kyriakou
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Max Hartmann
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mayanand Mishra
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mexican Crime Fiction
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mohiuddin Ahmed, University Press Limited
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Molly Napurrurla Tasman
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Muhlenberg Greene Architects
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nathan Azrin
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Niko Paech
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pacifico Agabin
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Boyd
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Petite Clothing
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Phil Clark (Author, Athletic Footwear Specialist)
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PNNM Ayurveda Medical College
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Priming effect

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Top Hat Trading Deletion

Hello DGG,

Why you are request the deletion of Top Hat Trading article? Article meets the rules of Wikipedia. The company in question show in several magazines in UK that is a very strong sources for Wikipedia and have enough sources on-line too. Text don't have any of promotion, so i don't see any reason for deletion of article. I suggest you to remove the deletion of article, I already re-write the article 2 times, don't make me re-write again please :)... If you have any questions is only contact me back, but please consider remove the suggestion deletion of article! Thanks DGG, and have a good nigh :)Johnf1982 (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC) comment removed by its author.

It's at AfD now DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion inappropriate

Regarding this, please can you explain why the deletion tag was inappropriate, as WP:G13 states "Rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation pages that have not been edited in over six months." and does not mention anything about notability at all... Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 08:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Puffin, It wasn't inappropriate to nominate it for G13. However, anyone can postpone such deletion, or even have a G13 undeleted. I gave the reason I was postponing it. I generally postpone G13s of anything I think has a reasonable chance to be rescued, by me or someone else. DGG ( talk ) 08:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Notable Alumni

Should these types of sections exist? I dislike them. I would think categories, List pages, or nothing at all would be better. I was asked about adding James T. Butts to the list, which is fine if they are considered acceptable, but I would rather delete the entire list... CorporateM (Talk) 02:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

They have always existed since I've been here. Perhaps they were in some sense a way to add content to school articles, but I see no reason to remove them. I don;think they;re meaningless: the extraordinary list you've linked to gives considerable context for the school's athletic record and the role of the school in the community . Ideally the sources should be specified, but we've in practice accepted the assumption they're in the sources for the article on the person unless challenged. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Top Hat Trading Limited

Hello DGG, why you are insist in proceed with deletion of Top Hat Trading article? I don't see reasons for that, and my opinion is shared by other users too, because you are the only that are try proceed with deletion and any user contest the article. The question about links, seems that you may are confused, because for me and Meters (Other User) references links don't need any type of registration to see.

I would like to challenge your decision to deletion of article "Top Hat Trading Limited", because I don't see enough reasons for that, may not is a very notable company, but is enough and have enough sources to keep the article on-line.

I look forward to a response where we can hopefully resolve the situation ASAP, avoiding the need for deletion of article. Johnf1982 (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I continue to think the references marginal. ~~ If the community disagrees, it won't be the first time. DGG ( talk ) 09:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok DGG, I respect your point of view and you have the right to keep your intentions to proceed with deletion of article, but the references, mainly the UK magazines are enough sources to keep the article, we see a lot of articles with less references and keep live so I kindly ask you to consider your decision to avoid proceed with all process of deletion of article. Johnf1982 (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

If I am wrong, the consensus will find for keeping. It's not my view that matters, but the consensus. As advice, the best response to a suggested deletion is improvement of the article with additional unquestionably reliable substantial references. I don't pursue AfDs once I've listed them--I rely on the community to make the decision. DGG ( talk ) 09:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Pardon DGG....

but was this removal of my comments intentional... and if so, why? Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

MichaelQSchmidt, of course it was accidental, and I restored them. I never delete comments at AfD, and anyway you and I are in essentially total agreement, as we usually are. If I had to name editors here whose judgment I really relied on, you'd be the first person I'd think of. DGG ( talk ) 09:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your courtesy. Be always well. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Chad Anderson merge

"I'm willing to do it". SpinningSpark 10:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC) OK, OK,. DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate references?

Hi DGG: After seeing an extensive article in the Toronto Star, I made a short article about Brendan Frey, a professor at the University of Toronto. Although I don't know him, he is the supervisor of a lab in which a (non-notable) relative of mine works, and since I made the article I have found out that their names will appear together among the co-authors of a paper which has recently been submitted to a journal. This puts me in a conflict of interest, so I hadn't intended to make any more edits to the article. However, today an IP editor removed all of the references, stating that they were inappropriate. Since you know much more than I about what's appropriate in this type of article, would you mind taking a look at it? I don't really care if this fellow, who I have never met, has an article or not, and if I have made an error in creating it please feel free to send it to AfD. However, if those references are inappropriate, then so are most of the ones I've been adding to other Professor articles, and I may need to change my editing practices.—Anne Delong (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

the problem was it wasn't clear that the references referred to people talking about his work specifically. I'll make some adjustments. (One way to handle it is to use the quote parameter in the references, but usually it's better done later in the article.) DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, DGG. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Donetsk People's Republic topics

Template:Donetsk People's Republic topics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Blanca Padilla

Hi, I saw that someone created the page Blanca Padilla in january and you deleted it because there were no references. I was thinking about creating it as I have found a few references (and there is probably a lot more than whas I'm going to mention) so I wanted to ask you if you thought I should create the article or not. Sources include Vogue (1, 2), Glamour (1, 2), GQ (1, 2), Telva (1, 2, 3, 4), Madame Figaro (1, 2, 3), La Vanguardia (1, 2, 3), ABC (1, 2), El Mundo (1, 2, 3, 4), El Confidencial (1, 2), Mujer Hoy (1, 2, 3, 4), Zeleb (1, 2, 3), Chaos (1), Las Provincias (1, 2,

3), Diez Minutos (1, 2), El Correo (1, 2), Diario de Sevilla (1, 2, 3), Telecinco (1), Europa Press (1, 2, 3). You also have some very short things (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17) as well as links that we can not use for the article but they show her notoriety (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15). Thank you in advance for your answer. MirandaKeurr (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It was deleted as being an unsourced biography of a living person; you will of course understand that the possibility of abuse can have such consequences, that it would be unfair to all if we did not require sourcing for these articles. Whether the person's career is suitably notable for a Wikipedia article was not involved one way or another.

Since there are sources, the article can be restored. I do not work in this subject field, and cannot therefore definitively judge whether the article would be acceptable under the provisions of our guideline WP:BIO, but the references you have given certainly make it probable. I could tell you the various bureaucratic procedures, but the simplest thing to do will for me to just undelete the article and add the references in the form you have given them.

Please follow up by revising the article to incorporate the information. The first step will be to remove some of the material in the second paragraph--and the tone of it is such that it may have been copied from an external website, in which case you should replace it with your own text.

You are quite correct that only the major articles are really necessary; taking a quick look at a sample of the ones you have listed, it is possible that some of those you consider minor are as significant as the others: the criterion is that it provides substantial coverage from a third-party independent reliable source, not a press releases or mere announcement. It would seem that many of the references duplicate each other, as I believe is customary in the field. Select the most accessible and important. Give not just the link, but the author and title of the item, and the journal published and date of publication, as well as the date the link was accessed. As for external links, the best practice is to make a single external link to her principal web site, which will presumably list the others. Istagram is not the best choice for the site, unless there is no other.

almost all the references you supplied are in Spanish. This is perfectly OK, but if it is at all possible to include at least some English language references, that would be helpful, as most of the readers of the English Wikipedia do not read spanish, but can be assumed to be able to read English.

If you wish to include picture, I'm sure you are aware that we can only include a picture for a living person if it is available under a free license--almost certainly this is not the case for any of the published ones.

I've looked at your contributions--as you are clearly knowledgable in a field where I am not, do not be surprised if I ask your advice about borderline submissions. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer and undeleting the article. I'm now going to revise it and start with re-writing the second paragraph as you asked me to do. I'm going to read again all of the sources and select the most helpful ones for the article, as well as looking for some in English. About external links, I usually add Fashion Model Directory and Models.com as they're commonly seen on models' pages. Then for the pictures there is a Blanca Padilla category on commons. Thank you again for all of the advices. MirandaKeurr (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

An AfC question...

Hi DGG, I know you've helped me out in the past with reviewing AfC submissions, and I was wondering if you could give me some advice. Should this draft should be declined based on lack of notability, or does it have enough sources/claim-to-fame to pass that test? I know it has some COI problems, but wanted to know if I should decline it based off of notability first. Opinion? (or maybe you can review the draft for me?) :) Thanks so much! ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This is written like an press release, but the subject might be notable. The German WP article was deleted -- see discussion on here--Google translate works adequately on it to clarify. Note that at the time German deletion discussions were based on fixed criteria, not primarily on a sourcing rule like our GNG. The founder has an unchallenged article on the German WP at de:Herbert Haum . It would have a decent chance if rewritten, but I'd advise the contributor to first translate and expand the article on its founder . I'll decline on this basis. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

btw, my admin status is only on the enWP; I cannot see deleted particles on the deWP. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

• Draft:.750 Nitro Express
• Draft:Backplane Protocol
• Draft:Burghardt Wittig
• Draft:Cecil Love
• Draft:Edward Pomorski
• Draft:Fairchild Controls
• Draft:George Macpherson Stalker
• Draft:Gillian Spreckels Fuller
• Draft:Heather Miller (Rabbi)
• Draft:Institute for Research on Unlimited Love
• Draft:Integrated Earth Data Applications

• Draft:Jacques Cohen
• Draft:James Hyde
• Draft:Jill Mackie
• Draft:Johan Roos
• Draft:John Hendry
• Draft:Jonathan A. Foley
• Draft:Kudappanamoodu
• Draft:La Tierra de Jauja
• Draft:Larry Maccherone
• Draft:Las Cebollas, Jalisco, Mexico
• Draft:Michael Dudman
• Draft:Monika Bravo
• Draft:Organizational Theory of Social Movements
• Draft:Patricia Sutherland
• Draft:Peter Spirer
• Draft:Ramashray Prasad Singh
• Draft:Ravi V. Bellamkonda
• Draft:Rio Blanco, Colorado
• Draft:Roelof Louw
• Draft:Roy Schatt
• Draft:Sanjay Reddy
• Draft:Scott Wallace
• Draft:Spaghetti Bowl (Salt Lake City)
• Draft:The Education and Training Foundation
• Draft:The Hillcrest Apartment, Santa Monica, CA

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Blake Henson
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bloom Hause (Williams-Levant House)
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Blythe Bohnen
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brian Groombridge
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bristol Law Journal

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carlos Franz
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carnegie Moscow Center
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Caroline Ashurst Stansfeld
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CETOP20
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charles R. Goeldner Article of Excellence Award
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chester Fritz
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Child marriage in South Sudan
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cindy Nemser, art critic
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cognitive Emotional Behavioural Therapy
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Concha Valdes Miranda
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Culinary Connection Culinary Arts Academy
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cycle Truck

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dainik Amravati Mandal
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dams in Amaravati District
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daniel M. Greenberger
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Graham - Organist
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/De Vleeschauwer
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Democratic Left Front of Sri Lanka
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Don Foresta
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Donald F. Brown

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gyorgyi Lantos and Istvan Mate

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

08:16:34, 12 February 2015 review of submission by Shomikz

• Shomikz (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Value360 Communications (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The previously written content was ill-formatted. I corrected it as per the Wikipedia format of starting the page with a brief detail, followed by history, services, clients, references and external links. The language of the content was also changed as well the style. Wikipedia's guidelines were followed in the edited version. Therefore, I would request the editor to reconsider these changes and approve it. Shomikz (talk) 08:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• • Shomikz, tho it's not overly promotional at this point, I declined it because it still fails to show notability, as I explained there. I cannot recommend resubmitting it unless you get at least one really substantial article about the company, because it would probably be deleted at afd even it were approved at afc. AfC is just a prescreening--the actual result is what will happen at afd. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

AFC deadline

Hi DGG, how many time will take for we get a answer from an article for deletion? In this particularly case, I'm talking about Top Hat Trading. Thanks! Johnf1982 (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding 'Proposed deletion of Vee (application)' by You

Hi David,

Received your message regarding 'Proposed deletion of Vee (application)' due to 'insufficient refs for notability'. Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JyotiAg

I have given the relevant & credible sources to my knowledge from following sources - 1) Respectable Industry Portal - http://techcircle.vccircle.com/ 2) Well known Business Site - http://www.bloomberg.com/ 3) Blog of the Investment Fund - https://lightspeedindia.wordpress.com 4) Technology Website - http://www.nextbigwhat.com/ 5) Sutra HR Website (one of the top HR companies in India) - http://sutrahr.com/

Would like to know what kind of references you require. Where is the article lacking reference links? This will help me to edit the article. Thanks! JyotiAg (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The Bloomberg reference is to a mere directory listing. Blogs are in general not acceptable, and this particular one seems to be the investment firm advertising the company it invested in, which is therefore particularly unreliable. Whether the others are acceptable is unclear to me--the question is whether they represent true coverage, or just press releases. I have removed the prod tag, but if better references are not promptly added, , the article is likely to be sent for a community discussion at WP:AFD, which is the only place such issues can be decided. The community makes the decisions, and my role is both to make sure all reasonable good faith efforts have an opportunity for such decision, while quickly removing the ones that wouldn't have a chance. good luck with it. DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

KPS Capital

Hi DGG,

A year ago you deleted KPS Capital and/or KPS Capital Partners. It is a company that controls jobs of some 47,000 people and thus should be in WP. It appears that you deleted the article because of concern about advertisement. That problem can be avoided. What do you think? Ekem (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ekem, The new version is considerably better: now try expanding it. The main things that are needed are:

1. You need other newspaper articles, of the same strength as the Pittsburgh one.
2. Looking at the Pittsburgh article, it is a source for the currently unsourced statements about the firms strategy in the first paragraph. Indicate this. It also talk about the involvement of labor unions., and this should be added also.
3. There should be sources for each of the acquisitions. Give the dates, prices paid, and the ref. Routine newspaper coverage does for this.

It's enough improved that I'm not planning to challenge the article . DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Michael Carrigan

Hello again, DGG. I don't understand what this person's role is in the University. There are quite a few news reports which could be added as references, but most of them are election-oriented. Is this a notable subject? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a little odd--basically, he's chairman of the board of outside governors. In theory, in most US public universities, these people have an advisory and final regulatory role only, not an administrative role. More recently, they have in some cases been playing a major role --even a dominant role--in university administration, often over the bitter opposition of the university faculty. Of he does, there should be good references to that effect. It wouldn't normally fall under the provision of WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyrights

Quick question: I just got some microfilm copies from the library for my COI work on Mylan. Some of them have quite a bit of content about how Mylan was ethical in a field (pharma) renown for corruption. These sources were published before a price-fixing scandal at Mylan, but some of them are after Mylan was instrumental in exposing widespread corruption (bribes at the FDA, fake test results, etc.), so at this time in history they were champions of ethics and had a beaming reputation.

Anyways, the point is, at least some of the content in that particular period of history is likely to be contested due to my COI and the sources are not available online for someone to verify. Is it a copyright infringement if I just upload the microfilm copies to Dropbox (or something similar) and use a public link directly to the PDF copy of the microfilm in the citation parameter in the article-text? CorporateM (Talk) 23:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The way this has usually been done here is that According to the second paragraph of WP:ELREG, we do not make convenience links to copyvios. Nonetheless, this has in effect been done here frequently, by making links to copies that the firm in question has placed on their press-release page in their website. Possibly, the company may have received permission to use it in their advertising, and then it would not be copyvio. For you to do it personally puts you in a difficult position if the copyright holder complains. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I wonder who would actually complain about the copyrights of 30 year-old microfilm, but if it's not kosher I've gotsa do the right thing. Interesting story: I actually originally advised they abstain here. They felt the page was overly critical and I said it wasn't critical enough. Then someone added a section about a lethal injection drug controversy that was well-sourced and that tipped the scales such that the ratio of critical content will probably remain the same in a GA article and we're not shooting ourselves in the foot by improving it. CorporateM (Talk) 14:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

RfA clerk application

Hey DGG, I saw this (pointed out to me in IRC) and I've been thinking about it. Not sure how the community would receive me, but I'm interested in what you had in mind exactly. I'm interested in this because I think that the user who does this should be a user familiar with how Wikipedia works and while probably could pass an RfA of their own has little interest in doing so. I'm not interested in the traditional existing admin permission although I would be interested in a local interface editor or TE2 type group with some of the admim tools. Anyways, it will be quite some time before I run for anything (ArbCom next year will likely be my next run on enwp) and would be interested in clerking RfAs. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought about whether I should say that an RfA clerk should necessarily be an admin, but decided it was not a requirement--after all, the arb clerks are not arbs, though many arbitrators have first been arb clerks. It came ip in this years election for arb whether an arb necessarily had to be an admin, and it was decided it is not necessary. Personally, however, I would advise you or anyone that it would be wise to test community sentiment at an RfA before running for Arb.

As for RfA clerk, I do';t propose to discourage or encourage anyone--it might be taken as an attempt to exercise authority at something about which I know very well I have no right to do so whatsoever. I suggest you ask others for an opinion. DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think I have a pretty good feel for the community's sentiment towards non-admin arb and I intend to run again despite that until the community says that being an admin is a requirement. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

19:16:03, 16 February 2015 review of submission by Sahuil

• Sahuil (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Case School of Engineering, San Diego (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you very much for taking the time to review the proposed page. I hereby would like to request a reconsideration of your position, as the Case School of Engineering, San Diego is a stand-alone unit that specializes in Wireless Health and Wearable Computing, distinguishable from the main campus activities. I strongly believe that CSE-SD is in a similar situation as the Tepper School of Business (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tepper_School_of_Business) for Carnegie Mellon University (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_Mellon_University). The page of the Tepper School of Business has multiple references to the Main page of Carnegie Mellon University, but still holds an independent page. I am aware that the link with Case Western Reserve University is through the Case School of Engineering; but due to the impact and explosive growth of Wireless Health and Wearable computing, I believe the inclusion of a free standing page for CSE-SD will give this nascent and growing field the place it deserves. As a parallel note, the is an added uniqueness in our academic offerings, as there is no other university currently offering equivalent degrees. Please do not hesitate in contacting me if you have any questions regarding my request.

Sahuil (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Sahuil, your purpose seems to be promoting the activities of the school. See WP:COI.

The present article isn;t the least parallel to the one on the Tepper School. Tepper is a major first-order division of the university, as are most business schools. We normally give them separate articles, as we do law schools and medical schools. We would not give a separate article to a branch of a medical school in another city. As for Schools of Engineering, we sometimes do make separate articles, but not necessarily. As you observed, we did make one for Case School of Engineering, which is certainly sufficiently important.

The information here, or some of it, belongs in that article. (Part of the information here is unnecessary detail and belongs on the school's website, not an encyclopedia, such as the amount of study time for each course. or the fact that exams and quizzes are given. Some of the information is puffery, such as "The resulting peer-to-peer interactions are mind expanding and an important part of the student's career development;" it adds no information and does not belong in an encyclopedia.

But I thank you for calling my attention to the article on Tepper, which is an pure piece of public relations, with outrageously extensive details of ranking, that'll need to be drastically rewritten. I've started. DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Chamambra page

Dear DGG

The reason why I am writing to You is that it was You who deleted a page (Chamambra) edited by me for the reason discovered from the deletion log:

• 07:50, 2015 February 15 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page Chamambra (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion:)

I would like you to help me restoring the page as the deletion process happened very fast and I did not have the chance to reply or contest the deletion.

Could you explain me the reason why the page was deleted, and furthermore, using these issues I would like to rewrite the page and correct the mistakes that led to its deletion.

But first, I need the page to be restored in order to do that.

Thank you in advance.

Yours, Dajes13 (talk) 08:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Dajes13 (talk · contribs), another administrator nominated it for deletion, as being advertising, and also as being copied from your website. I agreed, and deleted it.

We can not use material from your website here without a full free license under the formalities of WP:DCM, which irrevocably permits anyone in the world for using , modify, and distributing it for any purpose, even commercial. But that is not advised, for material on a website is usually written in a promotional manner, and is generally not suitable for an encyclopedia. It is better to rewrite. For example, lines such as "The intention to correspond with the person’s concept of living through fulfilling the desires." do not belong in an encycopedia.

I remind you of our rules on Conflict of Interest. If you are associated with the organization as a paid editor, you must declare this. See our Terms of Use, [14] Section 4, "Paid contributions without disclosure.
In addition, Wikipedia may not be used for the purposes of promotion-- we are not a directory. Our articles describe the subject, not advocate for it or praise it, and are directed not to prospective clients of contributors, but to the general public, who may want the sort of information found in encyclopdias. See also our rules on what makes an organization notable.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nobo Ice Cream

Hi, DGG, and thanks for withdrawing the AfD nomination that Ritchie asked about. I wonder if I could get you to also take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nobo Ice Cream? That one was NAC speedy-closed by User:Davey2010 after less than a day of discussion. I asked him to reopen it since I didn't think it qualified for speedy closure, and he did. Three discussants had said, keep due to improvement in the article. If you agree that it is now a keep, what would you think about withdrawing the nomination - which would make it eligible for speedy closure - and letting Davey know so he can close it? Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Done, & I closed it myself. I know only 4 effective ways of getting a really promotional article rewritten: 1/do it myself 2/ask someone who specializes in the topic 3/ask someone like me who likes to fix articles generally 4/list for afd. Among the ways that do not usually work is putting on tags or asking the original contributor. So, expect me to ask you once in a while-- any particular specialty? DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Sounds like you are in the school of thought it should be called "Articles for discussion" rather than "Articles for deletion". AfD does have that kind of effect on an article - up or out (usually out). I do like to rescue articles when they deserve it. Special interests? I'd say academics, scientists, that kind of biography. Schools. California-related stuff. And an occasional nonprofit organization, if you think there's a real chance they might be notable (but we sure do get an awful lot of well-meaning nonprofit spam). Things I never touch: sports, musicians, entertainers - basically, popular culture is my blind spot. Ritchie is a very good rescuer - better than me - and I think he does know that area. Also, I am available when you have a newbie on your talk page, asking "why was my article deleted?" and seeming to want to make a sincere attempt to improve it. You can just ping me into the discussion. If possible I help them improve it; otherwise I gently explain to them why it doesn't qualify for an article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I helped propose calling it Articles for Discussion some years ago--the RfC actually passed, but nobody took the trouble of implementing all the guideline changes, and when it was next suggested, it did not pass. It remains a good idea. I generally think it desirable to consolidate as many processes possible, so they do not escape attention. Our interests (and disinterests) seem fairly similar, but they are so broad there's more than enough to go around. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Amy Pascal

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Amy Pascal. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Re Max Leopold Wagner in Fenix down's RfA

Hi DGG -- There was actually only the link to de in the version I restored; I think the others must have got filled in by the bot overnight. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

that's odd behavior for earlier versions, though I can see how it might come about. I'm going to check some other titles. I consider it a bug, not a feature. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Prime Focus Technologies (PFT) - Page Deletion

Dear DGG

The reason why I am writing to You is that it was you who deleted a page Prime Focus Technologies (PFT) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Focus_Technologies_(PFT)

018:09, 3 February 2015 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page Prime Focus Technologies (PFT) (A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events): G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) I would like you to help me restoring the page as the deletion process happened very fast and I did not have the chance to reply or contest the deletion.

Could you explain me the reason why the page was deleted, and furthermore, using these issues I would like to rewrite the page and correct the mistakes that led to its deletion.

But first, I need the page to be restored in order to do that.

Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richa101091 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Three admins--not just me-- have marked this for deletion. It's a division of a larger concern Prime Focus Limited, which is certainly a notable company, but we would not normally make articles for its divisions. And that article, and the bios of its founders, need considerable work to remove promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 13:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for your revert. Prime Focus Technologies is subsidiary company of Prime Focus Limited, but both of them are separate companies. They provide separate services and function from separate offices. Even the management is separate. Following are the links to their website for your reference. 1) Prime Focus Limited (http://www.primefocusltd.com/) 2)Prime Focus Technologies (http://www.primefocustechnologies.com/). There were relevant links to support the article. I will work on the content if it needs changes. Kindly reconsider this and help me with a solution. Richa101091 13:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• FYI, I have drafted the article as a quick news search indicates notability is likely. I have also strongly advised Richa to use AfC and not attempt to put the article in mainspace himself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

  But see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kdzrules --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

  hardly surprising. I assume that in most case where someone is working substantially on an article on a firm and also articles on its executives, that they are likely to be a COI editor at least... DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

  Thank you all for your advice. DGG as mentioned by you I have edited the Prime Focus Limited article and the bios of its founders. Can you review them and let me know if they are as per Wikipedia standards. Kindly guide me in areas where changes would be required. Richa101091 (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Excessive speedy deletion noms by user Wgolf

Hello BDD,

Does this not seem excessive as regards the use of speedy deletions, or am I wrong? It's alarming to me, anyway... Note the summaries marked 'Notification: proposed deletion of...'

Your clarification and/or help would be appreciated,

Hamamelis (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

These are nominations of some quite dubious articles mostly or entirely by a sockpuppet group. About half will end up deleted. Normally I would say to attempt to source the blp prods before listing them, but when a group of such minimal articles is written, people understandably get impatient. If you want to rescue some of them, add references. DGG ( talk ) 12:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation, and for taking a look. Hamamelis (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on WP:AN#Closure review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script

Hello! You have been selected to receive an invitation to participate in the closure review for the recent RfC regarding the AfC Helper script. You've been chosen because you participated in the original RfC. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. This message is automated. Replies will not be noticed. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This Book is Overdue!

Hey David. I have just accepted Marilyn Johnson (author)... and trimmed it so that it's hopefully not excessively promotional now!... and I thought you might find the mention of one of her books interesting. This Book is Overdue! is apparently about how librarians can save the world. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Vishal Gondal edits

Hi DGG,

You placed a notice about promotional tone on the this article a month ago. I've been contracted by Vishal Gondal as a freelance writer to help correct any issues in the article. I've been editing in my sandbox here. Would you please consider reviewing my work and potentially applying my edits to the actual article? I have removed any content that I couldn't find a source for, and I tried my best to remove anything that sounded like a news release. I also removed a suspect link from the infobox as well as most of the external links. Please feel free to edit my sandbox directly if you'd like. Thanks, and looking forward to your comments. Ed0Strasse (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the disclosure, which is, as you clearly know, necessary under our Terms of Use. It's very good to see people doing it--but you will need to say this on the talk p of the article as well, or in the edit summary. I can say I like what you did, but it still you who take the responsibility.

Yes, I do like what you did--it addresses the issues, and is a much more sensible article overall. I've three major comments, and perhaps you could make the necessary edits; I'll look in a day or two and merge the content. a/Try to combine the one-sentence paragraphs in to logical groups. b/I see we have no article on INK talks, and on the firms he invested in. INK talks needs an article--if you don't want to do even a stub article, it needs an explanation in a few words. The others just need a quick explanation in a few words. It adds context to give an idea of the size of the investment if it's in the sources. c/ When there are multiple refs for a point, pick the best & most accessible. And 2 specific points: i/as his sport record isn't significant in terms of an encyclopedia, take it out of the infobox. ii/I'm not sure the Audi stuff is encyclopedic either: Event of no lasting significance. Materials about his business career would be more to the point. And some of his education should be added back. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the in-depth review. I've done another round of edits to my sandbox, so please take a look at your convenience. I couldn't find any reliable sources that support his education. Is there something in the Early life section about his education background you think I should do some more digging for? The current article (live, not my sandbox) has no references support his education. Also, I will definitely post a disclosure on the article's talk page. Is there any particular process I should follow, or just a similar declaration to what I left on your page?Ed0Strasse (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Niranjan Pati

Hello, DGG. Here's a professor. There seems to be a lot of superfluous detail in the draft. If this is a notable subject, maybe you could delete what's not needed? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

i'll take care of it, DGG ( talk ) 05

33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

how to achieve wp:balance in Six-Day War

I would like to have your advice concerning how to achieve wp:balance in Six-Day War. I added the sentence "Nasser took 3 successive steps that made the war virtually inevitable:" but it was removed, although it is supported by a lot of wp:rs. Other editors are against this sentence, and especially the word "inevitable".(see talk page here] and here).

The opponents claims that:

-1. this sentence is a wp:pov.

-- my response: It should be added to the article according to wp:balance : "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance."' BTW The opponents have hardly supported an opposite view.

-2. "this article is not about the causes of the war, it's about the war itself"

-- my response: The article should follow Wikipedia:Featured articles like Byzantine civil war of 1341–47, Boshin War, Anglo-Zanzibar War, Nagorno-Karabakh War, and include the war reasons, or at least a summary of the war eruption reasons.

user:IZAK mentioned that you have lots of experience in this area, if I understood well. Ykantor (talk) 07:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I've worked on topics relating to Judaism. I have not worked with topics relating to modern Israel or Palestine. I do have a general opinion that on all topics it is very difficult to achieve balance in a summary or other short statement, and that arguing over it is not as important as improving the article contents. DGG ( talk ) 09:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually those editors are falsifying history by keeping out the view of a lot of wp:rs (while they do not bother to present wp:rs who oppose to this view. (Sorry for the blunt words) Anyway, thank you for the prompt response. Ykantor (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Advice on AfC

Hi DGG, what do you think we can best do moving forward with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Relationship of the Tamils with the Chinese? The subject matter seems almost certainly notable, but I'm not confident to move into main space a subject that's been so plagued by POV interpretations of the importance and influence of groups if I don't sufficiently know the actual history and background. I would feel terrible letting this drop down the G13 memory hole if it's fine, but I'd feel equally bad if I move this to main, and it turns out I'm assisting in historical revisionism. What are your thoughts? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this field, but based on the article on the Chola Empire it seems perfectly reasonable, tho perhaps it should be merged there--there does not seem to be enough additional to justify breakout article. Just going by general probability , this does not seem like a particularly controversial aspect. I suppose there could be dispute whether the Chola or the Chinese were the dominant party, but the article avoids the potential issue. I moved it into mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Clara Amfo

Hi DGG. You commented extensively on this submission. I've found more news reports, and tried to avoid the "she said" ones, and also removed some of the fanpage stuff. Is it acceptable yet? She still hasn't won an award, but appears to be hosting high profile shows.—Anne Delong (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The criterion is not whether I think she should have an article but whether it will likely to be kept at AfD. I don't follow the AfDs in this area, so I don't know what's likely. The question is whether the coverage is pure PR. Maybe, maybe not. If all the articles say the same thing, thy are--that's the only way I could tell,but I haven't checked. If you thought it was worth working on, I trust your judgment. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I guess there's one way to find out. I added some more news reports and bumped in into mainspace. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Maintenance

Hello DGG. Do you think this edit needs oversighting? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

done. DGG ( talk ) 08:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Jonathan Westphal

Got there after viewing talk page of a user who made it. You think that there is a fair amount of notability now? Bladesmulti (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't really tell. one very popular introductory textbook might do it.Otherwise not. I accepted it, and AfD will decide if someone wants to list it there. Borderline decisions should;t be made by one person. DGG ( talk ) 08:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC) .

Wikia licensing

Whoa. Surprised I haven't run into a copy/paste from Wikia before (re: Maritz, Inc. v. Cybergold, Inc.). It's really ok for Wikipedia purposes, though? Their licensing default looks to require attribution, which seems a problem unless we're going to put the whole article in quotes and cite Wikia as a source. I understand that's a different issue from a copyvio, but still seems problematic, no? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the {{Wikia content}} should work and the docs include some suggestion on how to use the template. Ravensfire (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Even if the source is PD there is an attribution problem. In principle everything can be attributed properly by keeping the edit history, but in practice it will soon be unclear to the reader what part comes from where. This confuses the page history of all the EB and Catholic Encyclopedia and similar entries, and confuses it in a worse way, because the original source is out of date almost completely, and it is not easy to tell what may have been added by uptodate sources. (In my opinion adding that material was a serious mistake made in the early days of WP, when the expected level of accuracy for articles was much lower) There needs to be serious work done in rewriting every one of those articles, for there is no topic whatsoever where additional material is not known since then and anything implying a judgement has to be rewritten, Back in the first years of the twentieth century, it was seen as ... or it could be summarized as .....We also have scientific material from 10 or 15 year old US Dept of Agriculture publications, which now has a similar problem.

I personally do not add such material without using quotes. (They should normally have a beginning and quote on each paragraph, with an ending quote on the final one.) But I am not about to take on personally the correction of widespread sloppy practice. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lab Snacks.
Message added 17:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Note: the Thorlabs article has been restored (by another user). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

the company just might be notable -- the article need expansion to properly show it. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Friday Jumbe and Friday Anderson Jumbe

Hi DGG - I had this draft on my list, but noticed that the topic was already in mainspace. Maybe a merger is in order? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

{{User:|Anne Delong}} Yes.could you pls do it--it will have to be a selective merge. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, tomorrow (yawn) —Anne Delong (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Mary Lou Harkness

Dear DGG,

On 2/23/2014 you tagged the article "Mary Lou Harkness" for speedy deletion, due to content in the article - two sentences - that was the same as the original source, and it was deleted shortly thereafter. I have rewritten content in the article to correct this situation, and I would like to recreate it. If, after I have possibly re-posted it, there are any other issues that I need to be made aware of, please let me know.

Thank you,

James E. Scholz (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Quick Question

Did you mean to block this IP indefinitely back in 2011?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

not that I can remember; I unblocked. I suppose I selected the wrong time from the list as a slip of the mouse; but how did you find it--are you reviewing the list of indef blocks, which would be a very helpful thing to do. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It came up at WP:UTRS. Indef blocked IPs aren't very common, so I thought it best to check. I could review the list of indef blocks, however I am very very lazy. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

and for things like this, so is everyone else. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Improper AfD nomination for Jewish atheism

Hi DGG. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish atheism, and please take a look at the way that article was nominated and the current AfD page, there is something very wrong with the way the process was carried out on a technical level and the vote should be disqualified and cancelled just on those grounds. I don't want to tamper, but as an Admin you can surely see the problem there. Thanks and take care, IZAK (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

seems to be going OK. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 21:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Kirkus is no longer an RS?

After seeing your comment that Kirkus is no longer RS, I took a look at the noticeboard and saw this discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_180#Kirkus_Reviews. It's saying that "Kirkus Indie" is paid, but regular Kirkus reviews are not paid. Are you referring to this discussion or something different? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

yes. as a result of that decision, I no longer trust it for anything at all. I think that's the general view of most librarians I know. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 21:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I see. Obviously any "Kirkus Indie" review is non-RS. Do you think they are secretly paying for reviews on the "non-Indie" side? If so, how should the community handle this? Does it need to get any substantiation/proof that something untoward is going on? Have librarians written about the issue? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

no it's more that any publication that takes paid reviews is ipso facto non-reliable on any part of the site. this is similar to the way a newspaper that publishes advertorials tends to forfeit some of its reputation. There are indeed a few well-documetned exceptions: the NYT, WSJ, & Forbes all publish directory information on companies as well as genuine news. (I wonder how many of our articles use their directory information as evidence towards notability , btw.) So I agree this may be too harsh a judgement, but it is none the less the usual impression, which I share. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if a good way to deal with it is to consider Kirkus post-2009 a "less reliable" source. It can still be used, but if a particular book has a lot of different reviews and editors are trying to figure which ones make the cut, then perhaps Kirkus would not be used. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Sageworks discussion

I have responded to your comments on the talk page of the Sageworks article. In particular, I think you are missing the key issues with their business model that need to be disclosed in the article. Please respond, preferably on Sageworks talk page so we can close the discussion. --Physitsky (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I've replied. We can indeed close the discussion. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 21:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You have replied, but I disagree with your position. So the discussion will continue.--Physitsky (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:TurboTax

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:TurboTax. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

• Draft:German Center for Cardiovascular Research
• Draft:GMERS Medical College
• Draft:Green Valley Public School
• Draft:James H Simon
• Draft:Jeff Ryder
• Draft:Joey Kennedy
• Draft:Johannes Heinrich Quistorp
• Draft:Pacific Cup (yacht race)
• Draft:Richard Wee & Yip
• Draft:University of Limerick Postgraduate Students' Union
• Draft:Willis Law
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carlton Bailey (professor)
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Howard Rees
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rede Excelsior
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shivaramu Kadanakuppe

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)