User talk:DGG

Current time: 06:03,   November   11   (UTC)

add new sections at the bottom, not the top                                        ARCHIVES

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 add comments here; 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)

where is the "like" button? RobLab (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2015 (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 inclined 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)

items from 2015 and 2016 removed for archiving--a few will be replaced here

Your talk at 16 Years of Wikipedia

Heard your lightning talk just now. I support both the "Radical solutions to promotional paid editing" proposals you announced on notability and restrictions on anon editors around companies newer than 1999 foundation. Are there some written proposals to refer to? - Brianhe (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

there will be--one of the reasons I gave the talk was to get some feedback about just what to propose, and I am already getting some. Watch this space tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 20:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will evangelize to the communities I'm part of, as soon as there's something to show them. - Brianhe (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Hi, DGG! I'd like to hear that too. Link? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Video from the lightning talks is now available via Commons. DGG's lightning talk is the first one, proposal #1 is detailed at 2:15 and #2 at 3:00. - Brianhe (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Combative deletion rebuttals

Hi DGG, I noticed a wave of combative deletion rebuttals on your page lately and wondered if this is a new phenomenon. Would you like me to answer them as able, or just leave them alone? - Brianhe (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

detailed discussion forthcoming tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

In the past, most paid or other promotional editors, when their articles have been deleted, have simply gone away and tried again, generally under another username. For a while now, an increasing number of them have been adopting the practice of arguing. Many admins ignore them; my response unless they are ridiculous altogether is to explain why, sometimes in detail. If they are a good faith but promotional editor who simply has not realized, they usually understand, though it sometimes take a second round of explanation. . If they are professional paid editor with any sense, they realise they;re not going to get anywhere, and go away--and try again usually under another name. Zealots with a unpaid COI have very often continued to argue, sometimes indefinitely. The best thing for us to do here is the traditional remedy, to ignore them. Some paid editors are now doing the same, hoping to wear people down. The best technique here is to block them. If they show up for the same purpose again, they can and should be summarily blocked as behavioral meatpuppets--though we usually run a checkuser for possibly helpful additional information. The danger, as has become clear, is catching a good faith but imitative editor. There are only 3 solutions: accept promotionalism , be able to investigate who people actually are, or accept there will be occasional injustice. I will oppose the first as long as I work here, I will continue trying to change consensus to permit the second, and , alas, be forced to accept the third.

There are of course other factors. I have lately been taking a larger role at AfD, and as I didbefore, I tend to close the ones that nobody is eager to close and present some possible ambiguities. It is therefore natural that there should be exceptions taken to them. ,Unless I were to do only the obvious, it's part of the structure, and I will make an effort to address what I think are reasonable objections. And, unlike some admins who just refer people to DelRev hoping few will brave that extremely specialized process, I will revert a close if I think it may have been in error.,

There is also of course the possibility that I may have been making more errors. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

James Omura

Back in the day (Nov. 2013), you stated in an AfC comment that the subject is notable and that the page needed cleanup (diff). So, I cleaned it up and published it in main namespace just now. Feel free to improve the article further. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

all it needs now is 1/removal of some adjectives and phrases that constitute puffery, 2/or that could be seen as espousing a political view, 3/removing inserting some links to relevant WP articles, 4/Clarifying 4.1, which implies but does not say that the first generation parents resisted or wanted to resist, 5/ clarifying section 4.2 by saying in the text as coming from the California oral history project & making it an indented quote, 6/ removing or sourcing multiple sentences of opinion and 7/Finding some references that come from other sources than Omura and Toland.

It makes no difference how strongly you or I agree with the his political viewpoint. If we used WP to advocate our own beliefs, we'd end up the same as Conservapedia. You may possibly think that in the current political situation in the US and some other countries, all honest citizens should feel themselves called upon to undertake action, or at least write polemics. I would probably support this as a valid position, but the advocacy does not belong on WP. The role of WP in fighting actual or potential tyranny is now and always to write objective articles in purely dispassionate language. At WP we present the facts, trusting the readers to themselves draw the proper conclusions, not to tell the reader what conclusions they ought to draw.

To avoid misunderstanding, I think the WMF, as distinct from the encyclopedia, can appropriately play a political role in defense of its values, and I support its past and present actions and statements. And, also to avoid misunderstanding, there may indeed come a time when dispassionate reporting is hopeless, and direct opposition is the only possible course. But the two should not be confused. DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply. I cannot guarantee that I will improve the article more; perhaps you could post the content of your first paragraph above on the article's talk page so others will see your suggestions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Addition of un-redirected pages to Special:NewPages and Special:NewPagesFeed

I'm contacting you because you participated in this proposal discussion. While the proposal was approved, it has not received developer action. The request is now under consideration as part of the 2017 Developer Wishlist, with voting open through the end of day on Tuesday (23:59 UTC). The latter link describes the voting process, if you are interested. —swpb^T 18:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I will comment there, but I think this require WMF action independent of that process. DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Montazeri (WP:PROF)

Am interested in your thoughts on this AfD, and specifically on the issue I have raised. I have no idea how you are going to !vote on this, and am curious. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Lots of naive discussions of citations from others, but the actual analysis speaks for itself. You did of very good job of editing, btw. For someone of his importance I would have done if it needed, but its great to have such competent help. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words but all I did was clear away the most fetid of the promotionalism. The remaining directory entry ( i will not it an "article") is promotional; this person cannot have an actual WP article as there no sources from which to write one. The directory entry exists because someone is trying to promote this guy. So I have just polished a turd. It should not exist in WP per NOTDIRECTORY and PROMO.

I am going to try to raise N standards around WP. I am trying because a bunch of people seem to think we should and more importantly they undercut efforts to make meaningful changes by pointing to things like changing N.

But everybody has pet projects and is willing to fight to the death to protect notability guidelines and essays that allow fake "articles" to exist in WP, that are really directory entries or worse. The journals people do it, the academic people do it, the radio people do it, the music people do it, etc. It will be a waste of time, but I will try. So it goes. Jytdog (talk) 05:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm willing to go to some trouble to maintain proper standards of notability based upon objective evidence that shows someone is a leader in their field. WP:PROF is one of the very few guidelines we have that follows a rational approach to inclusion policy. I fell so strongly about objective guidelines that I support them even when I think them overly broad (as for sports) or much too narrow (as for politicians).

I can and will argue as I think appropriate & necessary using the GNG in either direction, but it's a totally useless intellectual activity that I think detracts from the encyclopedia . You may possibly have a case about directory entries (though we have about 2 million directory articles), ut I don't see how the article is PROMO. Anyway, looking at it from your direction, even so you're attacking articles that we do have in a field where we do not have anywhere near enough coverage--if you want to attack directory entries--why not do it a field where e have overcoverage. Or do you really think academics unimportant?

Of course we have information to write an article we have what's important about academics: their position and their published work. In each case that's third party information based on the university authorities and the editor of the journals and the citing authors. The decisions of peer reviewers and peer authors in the aggregate are much sounder basis for an article than the uninformed comments of journalists in most current day newspapers.

one of the differences in what I and most others do here, is that I'm willing to fight even for what other people consider important. Tolerating and supporting each other is the basis of a cooperative encyclopedia. There's real promotionalism in WP that's much more dangerous and compromising than even the original version of this article. You're losing perspective. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I know that lots of people have identified various fields in WP that they think are particularly .... bad. Some people focus on where they believe there is lots of "paid editing", some people focus on where there is lots of COI, other people on various forms of POV or bias, systemic and otherwise. I know people think that what I care about is COI/paid editing. They are wrong but I let myself get trapped too often in that box.

My work is primarily about NPOV - ensuring that articles summarize high quality sources.

NPOV is what my entire Userpage is focused on, and has been focused on, for a long time. (it comes down to finding high quality sources and accurately summarizing them)

Lots of people have said we should address the paid editing problem at least in part (and in some quarters, primarily) by raising N standards.

I agree with that. It would solve lots of other problems too.

I don't understand -- at all -- how anybody can support raising N standards, and at the same time support any guideline that allows automatic green-lighting, even when we cannot actually write a WP article about something because there are not multiple independent sources with significant discussion of it. (In other words, it isn't possible to write an NPOV article about it)

I mean it - this completely baffles me and in my view comes down to special pleading. And each Wikiproject points to the special pleading that other Wikiprojects do. Which means we will never succeed in raising N standards for any field in WP.

If, on the other hand, Guy is correct and NOTDIRECTORY has been effectively abandoned, I need to rethink what a "WP article" is and my approach to NPOV.

But as it stands, in my view, the approach to N that allows PROF and JOURNALs and RADIO to create and keep directory entries, is what allows crap articles about business executives to exist.

(and what is promotional about the article about the guy who is subject of the AfD, is its very existence in WP. It was created as part of a promotional campaign, and upon examination it fails GNG and should not exist in WP at all. It is no different than artIcle about some business executive that gets created, gets looked at, and should get deleted.)

So what do people mean when they say "raise N standards"? How is it coherent and consistent? I really don't understand (obviously). Please explain how this makes sense to you. Please. Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I should acknowledge that I made a mess of the discussion at PROF. I did that badly. Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Btw, i just read your userpage, and see that your thoughts about GNG and N are completely different. Hm. Jytdog (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

yes, they are, and I've made no secret about it. Besides what I do on wiki, I've talked about this at many events. This has been my general approach for about 7 years now--the main difference from then is that 7 years ago the problem of using WP to advertise was not as widespread, and I was much more willing to rewrite such articles than I am now. Under current conditions, I'm very much more concerned about fighting promotional editing than about disagreements on the level or criteria of notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

But in making arguments in actual cases here I always give an argument based on the conventional rules. I will then sometimes supplement it with additional reasons. I use my own concepts in deciding which articles I'm going to argue about. I will not personally defend an article that clearly meets WP:N and which I do not think appropriate unless I can find some other policy-based reason. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Anthony Gill

Hi DGG. Is Anthony Gill (professor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) notable? You're better than I at accessing the notability of academics. The article was created by HM8383, a member of this undisclosed paid editing sockfarm. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Definitely notable, but see my comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arunkapadia/Archive [2]:

My view is that all articles written by this group should be deleted regardless of notability. The TOU are foundation policy. Our COI policy is based both on that and WP:NOT, which supersedes all consideration of notability. Attempting to advertise someone highly notable, is still advertising, just as advocating the worthiest of causes is still advocacy. Some of the people being written about are so notable, however, that an article ought to be written. I considered whether to rewrite the existing articles, but decided not to, because it would take rewriting from scratch. I think the only way we can enforce our rules and deter promotionalism is to first delete, and then wait a bit and communicate with the subjects to make sure the lesson is learned, and then rewrite. DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here, with a minor point. The PROD template might benefit from a special-purpose parameter. As it is now, the wording is unfortunate. I quote: "If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article so that it is acceptable according to the deletion policy." Of course contradicting the reason for deletion. (And of course I have no objection to the idea of deleting this article or those like it. Just a matter of wording.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, there is a way a undeclared paid editor can actually save the article, which is by declaring and then rewriting. I do not think there's an actual guideline, but so far we have generally granted amnesty retrospectively, in order to encourage people to do things properly. Of course, it a situation like this there would be considerable explanation needed. Anyway, I was thinking of using speedy in analogy with G12. I know it would be to IAR, and IAR is rarely used in connection with speedy. We could have another speedy criterion, but I don't want to propose it until consensus about the tou is more firmly established. It's cases like this which will show the need for it. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I am in favor of nuking the articles created by this group. There is a list of remaining articles at WP:COIN#Arunkapadia. An IP has heavily trimmed this one. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

considering the extent of work on this particular article, I am not going to list it for deletion. But anyone else can do so. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

COI/BLP issues

I came across 501 7th Avenue, SeaRise Office Tower, and 111 West 33rd Street and originally thought that it was a paid promotional editor and so put a paid editing notice on the creator's user talk page. Looking a bit closer at the user's created articles, it seems that they might actually be trying to spread information about Qatari owned businesses that have terrorist funding connections, and have created several BLPs/recent deaths that make terrorist funding/terrorism claims too: Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, Ismail al-Salabi, Mohammed bin Hashim al-Awadhy. I'm not sure how great the sourcing is on the BLPs, but given the sensitive nature of the topic and a near laser focus on it, it raised my eyebrows. You deleted Pamodzi Sports Marketing as G11, and since that was the last deletion on the talk page, and I know you have experience with COI type subjects, I thought I would get your thoughts. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I have generally thought most large buildings in major cities notable, though it is difficult to say an exact size, and t will depend on the city.

Searise & W33rd St are I thing large enough; 7th Ave isn't but it was built by a famous architect. But what we really need is an article for the company that owns them (and the Empire State Building), Empire State Partners (formerly Empire State Realty Trust), which is mentioned in the Empire State building article); it is a NUYSE company and has an interesting history. None of this of course answers the question of whether we should keep articles on notable subjects by undeclared paid promotional editors. I've been arguing that we should not--for those that are so notable as to be essential, someone else can rewrite them -- after a gap, because there is no other way to convince people that it is not helpful to pay for an article. If your suggestion is correct, it's still by a promotional editor, because it's advocacy which is considered as promotionalism , but that isn't considered nough reason for deletion, if the subject is notable just for revision unless it's so bad that revision is hopeless and it falls under G11.

I'll look at the BLPs tomorrow. The sourcing is,as you say, not great, but I think they would pass AfD DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Review some JzG deletions

Hi, JzG's talk page notice suggested contacting you for review of deletions. He also seems to be on a wikibreak. Please have a look at my query at User talk:JzG#Deletion of long-standing articles without review, which came about from a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Timeline of Facebook. Thanks. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

fwiw, those deletions stem from this ANI thread, Vipul's paid editing enterprise, where there have been some calls to delete company timeline articles created by the group under discussion there. Jytdog (talk) 05:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh and i just saw this: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#A_Wikipedia_wide_new_policy_is_needed_to_ban_.22paid_for.22_editing. oy. Jytdog (talk) 05:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I would probably support a CSD criterion modeled after G5, for undeclared paid editing, but we do not currently have one, and using G11 for the purpose is stretching it very far. This is especially true when the actual article was probably not written as promotionalism or advocacy, but as a unfortunately misguided good faith approach to improving WP. JzG is very much around, and I do not intend to do this without notifying him, especially because I entirely respect and totally agree with his desire to rid WP of blatantly improper editing. I consider the speedies to be misjudgment, not absolute error. I will undelete them tomorrow unless there are arguments otherwise., and they can then be taken to AfD I fully understand why the deleting admin did this, and I totally sympathize with his views on this sort of editing. But G11 is really not the appropriate method. These need to be taken to Afd if they are to be deleted, because this is a disputed situation and requies explicit consensus. Speedy is not appropriate when the consensus will be debated, only when the deleting admin can be reasonably sure that the consensus would certainly support him. I do not think there's the case here. and the best course would be for JzG to do that himself. My own suggestion would instead be a merge, and therefore I will not personally take it to afd after it has been restored, for AfD is not needed to do a merge.. DGG ( talk ) 07:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• So, first of all, I already proposed a speedy criterion for material created in violation of the terms of use, and it was rejected. Getting any kind of broad community consensus on what to do with paid advertorial is difficult, not least because there is a group of people who for whatever reason seek to make it impossible. Not all of these are associated with the Sangerites and their fawning over Kohs. Some have a genuine, if in my view misguided, belief, that Wikipedia's need for articles overwhelms the problems of people subverting Wikipedia for profit.

That's why I only removed a small number of articles. There are several medical timelines, for example, all paid for by the same pyramid scheme, which I did not touch.

The articles I did remove are promotional in intent and designed, in my view, purely for SEO. They are timelines of commercial entities, paid for by Vipul (who engages in SEO as well as his Wikipedia editing pyramid scheme), replete with numerous links to other commercial entities, several of which are owned by Vipul. And that's what pushes them over the line. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

JzG, You may be right, but you shouldn't be making this decision by yourself, especially because there is disagreement about the nature of Vipul's motivations. Please undelete and send them to AfD. This particular case very much needs discussion, and preferably not just between the two of us. . As for the speedy criterion, the main problem I see is exactly what is presented here--the difficulty in determining motivations (and identity, usually, though not in this case). DGG ( talk ) 15:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's any disagreement about Vipul's motivation by now, but whatever. Guy (Help!) 16:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

JzG is free to hold whatever views they want to hold about paid editors. They shouldn't be calling all of them as "vermin", "dogs" and "parasites" - that is at least a gross violation of WP:NPA, and a BLP violation as well, if anyone cares. But, the least they can do is not to delete stuff bypassing consensus. Feel free to AfD the articles, but don't act unilaterally. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Read again for comprehension. I did not call them dogs. Parasites, of course, is entirely accurate according to the definition of the term. Guy (Help!) 00:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@JzG: I am not that interested in the dehumanizing language you use for people you don't like. But is someone (you or anyone else) going to undelete the "Timeline of..." pages? The deletion under CSD deletion G11 is clearly not applicable because it is not an unambiguous case of blatant advertising; indeed DGG agrees on that point. The CSD process is meant to deal with clear-cut cases with minimum of WP:BURO, not a method to shortcut consensus on an issue on which reasonable people may differ. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@JzG: You also keep repeating that Vipul is running an SEO spamming operation (despite them denying it) and a pyramid scheme. Might I remind you that pyramid schemes are illegal in the US? This is as blatant a personal attack as can be imagined. Just because you think you're right doesn't mean that you can go around flouting rules with impunity. If you can't keep your head while dealing with the subject, let other people deal with it. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

See WP:COIN. They were offering to pay people, and allow those people to recruit downline and pass the money on. That's a pyramid scheme. The SEO is also proven to my satisfaction, people have checked the records of sites he admits to operating. I actually think he did not consider how this would be perceived. I originally offered him some advice on how to support Wikipedia articles in his area of interest without these problems, but it's since become apparent that this has been going on for a long time and his responses do not look to be entirely straight. I've not been involved in much of the cleanup, I mainly reviewed sourcing on a series of articles on immigration-related topics where Vipul and his paid editors had added large numbers of links to sites selling visa services. Again, I am not sure this was intentional spamming, but there is a conflict between the claim that they are experienced editors and the use of poor quality promotional sources.

You also appear to be under a misapprehension about my views on spammers. They are not people I dislike. I dislike the behaviour, not the people. I strongly suspect that Vipul and I would share broad agreement on a number of issues, and several of his paid editors seem to be nice people caught up in a nasty situation. Paid editing is predatory, a parasitic abuse of a charitable project for personal gain. It is reprehensible and, I would argue, morally indefensible. But you can see why Vipul did this. The critical point is what happens when the user is confronted. In this case the response was obfuscation. That is not cool. There have been many cases where the response is genuine remorse, the user not having even considered how the community might view paid editing. I can write that down to mistakes born of ignorance. That certainly applies to a lot of Vipul's paid editors. But not, I think, to Vipul himself, based on current evidence. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

JzG You are accusing someone on Wikipedia of doing something illegal. And just because you think you're right and you have the correct opinions about paid editing, that makes it ok. Even if you were right (and you aren't), this kind of behaviour would be wildly out of line. Referrals are not necessarily pyramid schemes; they need to have a structure where people get most of their income through referrals and not through direct work. There are many other factors which go into pyramid schemes (see this page, for instance). You are totally incompetent to make such a determination (as am I), but you go around making these outrageous accusations. I would suggest that you're unable to think rationally about this topic. Please get some outside advice on this matter (from someone on WP) you trust. Preferably in private. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

You are engaging in hyperbole. Up to a point, so am I. I think there's nothing more to be said here. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@JzG: Are you going to undelete the "Timeline of ..." articles? DGG says clearly above that G11 doesn't apply and you shouldn't be making this decision by yourself. Your failure to answer this question is rather annoying. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not good at answering questions when they are framed as overblown rhetorical statements, Am I goin to u delete the paid-for SEO adverts? Um, I will leave that to DRV because I remain convinced they are spam. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on this further, since at least some aspects of this might be headed for arb com. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Touche!

Hi DGG, I just wanted to thank you for having a spirited but civil discussion at AfD. Your points are good, as I believe are mine. Your good demeanor is refreshing. I didn't want to clutter the AfD page up with this, but wanted to say "Thanks!" Jacona (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC) (re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Mendelson )

Commenting on Vipul/Riceissa related matters

Hi DGG, do you think I should refrain from commenting on Vipul/Riceissa related matters? I decided to leave the following note on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Riceissa/Spokes (replication system): "Note: I was a part of the same paid editing ring as User:Riceissa, so that is a COI I hold; I am not getting paid for any of my comments related to the Vipul/Riceissa ordeal, they are of my own accord. I was not asked by Vipul or Riceissa or anyone else to make any of the comments below." If you think I should stop, I'll stop; I don't want to get blocked for paid MEATing or whatnot. Sincerely, Ethanbas ^(talk) 07:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) You're skating on pretty thin ice already, so I would strongly recommend you keep well clear of anything even tangentially related to this mess. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with Guy/JzG. Softlavender (talk) 10:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I will not comment on any thread any longer; however, I reserve the right to comment on talk pages of users involved in this mess (making sure they know I was part of Vipul's project) Ethanbas ^(talk) 02:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Indexing

Here, you say "About reusing drafts: the unlikelihood of anyone else reusing a draft is one of the faults of our current system. I think there are at most 4 people (including myself) who rescue old drafts. I generally only do them in my primary field of interest (academic faculty and related), but even so I have a very long list, and very rarely have time to do one. We do not even have a system where when someone starts an article, it shows whether there is a pre-existing draft on the topic. The default Wikipedia search does not pick them up, and even if set to Everything only finds them if spelled the same way. Kudpung, you know this system best--is there any reasonable solution?". Maybe INDEXing the drafts is the solution? Ethanbas ^(talk) 02:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

this has been proposed, and decisively rejected. Drafts contain unverified material, including copyvios and advertising nd possible BLP violations. The whole idea for drafts is that they are not yet reasd to have a prominent position in external indexes. They do show up in our internal search, if one knows the title and specifies a customs search.T

the solution that has been suggested several times and could have been adopted years ago, is to categorize them in at least rough categories, so people could at least scan them. The objection has been raised that there are not people willing to do this manually, but there are two other methods: a simple weighted keyword approach, which, however inexact, is at least a start, and more recently an AI system. There has historically been a dichotomy--at least a perceived dichotomy--between the people who work with the WP infrastructure and the people who work with articles. Fortunately, under the current Executive Director, there seems to be a possibility of some improvement. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Bryan Caplan

You have an interest in professors, so this may be of interest to you: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Caplan (2nd nomination) Ethanbas ^(talk) 20:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It's interesting that Vipul did not mention he is associated with Caplan when he added so many primary-sourced references to Caplan's blogging into articles. Funny how that goes, eh? Guy (Help!) 00:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

JzG, there are two alternative approaches to COI problems: one is to simply judge the subject for notability in the usual way; the other, for which you have been arguing, is to judge the intent. I certainly understand the point of your way of doing it: I would support a rule that undeclared paid editing be deleted rather than fixed on the same principle as we delete articles from banned editors (otherwise the prohibition is toothless), and I would probably also support a rule that grossly COI articles also be deleted rather than fixed unless someone actually rewrites them, as we do for copyvio. There are also arguments against either proposition, and I think the strongest two are that usually we cannot tell, so it will remain toothless, and that is that paid editors can be persuaded to declare, and COI editors taught to write properly (though both seem to be quite rare occurrences).

But at present the community supports neither rule. I doubt we could get the necessary support to explicitly change either of them, and I am very reluctant to propose that until there is some chance ofsucceeding in the argument Another way to change the rule is to change what we actually do at AfD, because the rules here are what we actually do, rather than just what we say; this is the method you;ve been pursuing. I've been doing the same thing, but I am trying to concentrate on the individuals without significant notability, not clearly notable people like him DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedian in Residence BoF at Wikimania 2017

Hello!

My name is David Alves (User:Horadrim~usurped), and I'm an Wikipedian in Residence at RIDC NeuroMat (User:Horadrim). I've reach your contact through the == Wikimedian in Residence BoF at Wikimania 2017 ==outreach:WIR|Wikimedian in residence page]] in Outreach. As you may know, Wikimania 2017 is coming! I am here because, as a fellow WiR, I believe this would be a great opportunity for us to share experiences, discuss difficulties and exchange solutions, creating a community among us capable of supporting in other projects that would benefit from residents. In that sense, I have submitted a proposal of a Birds of a Feather activity to Wikimania that you can check out here. I hope to count with your support in this project and would like to invite you to join us if you participate in Wikimania. In case of any doubts, please feel free to contact me, either in my talk pages or by e-mail at david.alvesoutlook.com.

Thank you very much! ‎Horadrim~usurped (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment

I just wanted to comment and say I really appreciate your User page. Thanks for writing that up because I have always felt the same way and couldn't say it better myself. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Radford draft

hi DGG. you mentioned that you would like to see <andrew radford> draft before i submit and that you would accept it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Josephgalasso/sandbox

photo is a family photo and i have permission from radford to use it freely. thanks so much for any feedback. i could submit next week if it looks ok. josephJosephgalasso (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

even if you have permission, you need to follow the formal procedures at WP:DCM. The copyright permission must be made by the copyright owner, and it must be for CC-BY, which permits use not just in WP, but use anywhere by anyone for any purpose, even commercial. And we normally list doctoral students only if they are notable themselves. We usually don't mention editorial board membership, only editor-in chief. Otherwise it seems OK. DGG ( talk ) 08:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

to check

Studied subjective nature of the article

Hello. Removed the 'POV' and 'peacock' template on Malvika Iyer after researching on the subject matter and the neutrality of the article. Changed the subjective nature of the article. Added new factual details and new citations. Thank you.

YouthforSDG (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC) YouthforSDG

Frankly, you've made it worse, adding yet more subjective material: [3]. I think it needs a fairly drastic edit to remove sentimentalism. I may get to it, but perhaps someone else will get there first. DGG ( talk ) 07:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

to check

Talk page size

Wikipedia editing guild

Pardon, can I ask you to archive a bit more of this talk page? My browser is hanging when I try to post here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I keep intending to. thanks for reminding me. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Which browser and OS, Jo-Jo? Given a lengthy talk page here, with Safari on an iPad I have no problems reading or posting here. With Windows 10 and IE 11 attempting to go directly to a section from my watchlist hangs—but going to User talk:DGG works OK. Surely there should be a computer based solution. Fifty years ago (when I started programming) maybe no, but now? — Neonorange (Phil) 20:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

If I may butt in; I'm using Safari on iPhone, and when I first tried to load this page I got an error message saying something like "An error occurred. Attempting to reload page." I've never gotten that message before. This is quite possibly the most popular talk page on Wikipedia. Lizard (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

actually, it's slowing down even for me, with Safari and 16GB memory. It's my own fault, because I ambitiously set up a system of subject archives instead of doing like everyone else. I will make another try this weekend. DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The Windows 10 64-bit system and the 80 Mbit/sec Internet connection I use is way overkill for editing and browsing. Your talk page, as it is the moment of my sig time stamp, loads in less than a second when I go to User talk:DGG. When I go to a specific section of the page (from my watchlist) the browser busy pointer appears and after five minutes is still busy. I must reload Wikipedia in the browser to continue, as the page cannot be recovered. Computers should allow a person to be as productive as that person wishes, not the reverse. — — Neonorange (Phil) 00:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

the section editing for me works in just the opposite way--much faster. Anyway, expect some improvements here. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for all you do to help keep Wikipedia collaborative. It's a thankless task, on the ANI board.auntieruth (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Notability and GNG

Summary, modified from my comment elsewhere,

The policy on whether we keep an article is not WP:N. The policy is WP:NOT. The guideline WP:N is the explanation for how we decide on one part of that policy, NOT INDISCRIMINATE. An article might meet that, but fail other parts of NOT. If something is effectually promotion, it fails NOTADVOCACY, and that's enough to rule it out as encyclopedia content, because we do not advertise anything, no matter how notable. There's no justification for keeping advertising in Wikipedia any more than there is copyvio. Unless there is a NPOV version to revert to, or unless it is immediately fixed, it should be deleted, whether by speedy G11 or at AfD. It shouldn't be moved to draft or userified in the hope of improvement, as we might for something lacking in sources for notability but where there's a good chance of finding them. We wouldn't do that for copyvio. We wouldn't do that for BLP violations. Using WP for advertising is just as harmful. "fixable" applies in many circumstances, but not for any of these. DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

HM. Hm. Set brain to churning with all kinds of things clicking. Two questions:

• Is that true, historically? I mean, was N created to flesh out NOT, explicitly?
• Is this widely seen as true in your view? (I have never heard of it or thought about it this way.... it makes total sense however) Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

(1) See this very early version of WP:N from Sept 2006:

Based on several sections What Wikipedia Is Not, it is generally agreed that topics in most areas must have a certain notability in order to have an article in Wikipedia. Several guidelines have been created, or are under discussion, to indicate what is and is not notable by {{|Radiant!}}. (but at that point several of the proposed specific guidelines had developed to approximately their present form, with varying degrees of acceptance). The first appearance of a GNG was in Nov, 2006. by UncleG

(2) This my understand of the necessary implications of WP:NOT. It is my interpretation, & I think reflects the trend of decisions at AfD. It is not universally accepted; the alternate interpretation is for keeping promotional articles even if borderline notable, if it is at all possible to fix the promotionalism. In choosing how to interpret, we should follow logic & consistency, but also practical considerations. My view is that accepting even temporarily promotionalism plays into the hands of paid editors and other spammers, and that such editing has the real potential to destroy the usefulness of WP as an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I meant mostly the "this guideline fleshes out NOT" thing. Thanks for the history link! Jytdog (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

another restatement of notabilty SNG vs GNG

(my argument at a recent deletion review in popular music) Consistent practice at WP has been that meeting the SNG is enough in this field. Guidelines are what we do, not just what we say, and if there is conflict between the two, it's what we do that matters. WP is not run primarily by rules, but primarily by consensus--rules are attempts to codify the usual consensus, and are valid only to the extent the community in practice supports them. re ambiguous, The rule on charting has an enormous advantage: it produces unambiguous results. Except for the need to define just what charts it is that count, there's not much room for dispute and decisions can be easily made,. Following the GNG is another matter entirely:the specifications that coverage by ""reliable"", significant coverage, independent and secondary and in sufficient number, can be endlessly debated, and in all fields where we rely on the GNG they are endlessly debated-in most cases that reach AfD they can be plausibly debated in every direction, and people in practice pick what side to argue by some sort of global judgement about whether the article should belong in WP. Thus our hundred or so FaDs a day where the main discussion is the opportunity to show skill in quibbling, and the result depends on just which skilled quibblers appear at the discussion. I don't care about the individual results in this subject field, but I do care they our decisions be consistent and rational. The SNG does that--the GNG guarantees the opposite.

Perhaps it's odd that with some degree of reputation as a skilled quibbler, and years of experience quibbling on both sides of AfDs, I want to do away with those discussions. I've experience in a lot of unnecessary things, and I'd much rather use my skills at something substantial at RSN or the like, and in figuring how to fix articles. I came here because I thought I could use quite different skills in finding refs to fix articles, but I've never had a chance to use them much. Debating as we do it is just a game. Sourcing is real. DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Eliyahu Leon Levi

Hi DGG, I noticed you struck the listing for Eliyahu Leon Levi at WP:AN/CXT No. 9 with the comment that it is in adequate English; but how's the translation? The quality of English in the article isn't really that important; any copyeditor can do that. What we are mostly concerned with, is the accuracy of the translation, as most of the pages in this list were script-generated due to a misconfig in ContentTranslation and are either pure MT, or MT+monolingual copyedit, so don't worry too much about the English quality.

If you can vouch for accuracy of articles translated from Hebrew, the following ones in the list could use your help, if you have the time: #106, 197, 1627, 1680, and 1907. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this is a questionable reach for me , as I do not read the language at all. I cannot vouch for accuracy; I can vouch for the English making sense and being consistent and the facts reported being likely. Like most bios, the article is extremely straightforward and leaves little to be misinterpreted. I know the cultural significance of what's reported, and it makes sense. I would not have looked at anything more complex or where I understood nothing of the subject. It's no worse that way than were it to have been written directly into the enWP using Hebrew sources, and certainly had it been an unacknowledged machine translation. The only reason these articles are any different is we know instead of guess that they used machine translation. So I shall ask a wikifriend to verify.

And I did likewise with a Chinese article on a straightforward political career. Again, it makes sense, but it is a language where machine translation to English is notable awful. It could be imaginary, but so could any article using Chinese sources. I'll ask for verification.

The other languages I've worked with I do know how to read at least somewhat, best for French and German. How well I can deal with them depends upon how simple they are. I've done translations in both from scratch, but I do not attempt deWP articles on history with their usual complicated German syntax--this is one case where it is easily possible to get mixed up. However, some types of articles are extremely formulaic. I'm most likely to run into an uncertainty regarding the equivalence of positions in different countries, tho as a librarian I know a lot of organizational equivalents. (There's a very nice large book A manual of European languages for librarians by CG Allen. Invaluable for the Soviet era in particular.) And if I come across anything I'm unsure about, or where I do not know the cultural equivalent, or where the original seems confused, I leave that part out. I see from the comments that other do similarly.

But this raises some more general questions. I was going to post on the project talk p.and I will in some more detail tomorrow:

How many of the articles I accept at NPP or AfC can I really vouch for the accuracy? That's an unrealistically high standard for any new page patroller--all we really check is basic verifiability. That a translation is not quite accurate is no worse than in the English from a non-native speaker is not quite accurate, or if the sources don't actually verify what they say they do, or are unavailable. The only time we really check an article in depth is when an article is challenged at AfD or analyzed for GA or FA. What we're looking for is basic correctness, not detail.

of the first 100 articles, we're accepting or redirecting almost all of them that are worth working on. Some that I could read perfectly well I am not marking for acceptance because I do not consider it worth the work, and I see others are deciding similarly. My intent is to rescue everything worth rescuing if I can do enough work. The project would be enormously simplifyied if we simply accepted translations from the Scandinavian languages. The machine translation does very well with them, because the syntax is almost identical. It also does very well with straightforward German.(as distinct from the professional level German in their longer articles) In other languages , the most serious inaccuracy is the sequence of events because of the difference in tense use which are very often messed up by the machine translation, and the original is often a little unclear here also. But I'm particularly concerned the project did not screen out those articles that used the machine translation as a base, and then edited manually by the contributor or a good editor. There's no reason to assume they're incompetent.

Our role should be to screen out the ones that are incapably done, and not worth fixing. There are fewer than I anticipated--perhaps 25% not 50%. I also consider it our role to produce readable though not necessarily high quality English. :::I am not going to let something that can barely be deciphered pass no matter where I see it. How far it's worth fixing depends on how easy it is to fix, and it's importance.

If this standard is not acceptable, I might challenge the entire project using the experience I now have as the basis. The goal of all we do here is, after all, to get articles worth keeping, not to reject all problematic ones out of hand. But in any case I do understand your advice, and will work more conservatively. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for this very thoughtful and detailed response. You raise a lot of interesting issues regarding translation, verifiability, accuracy, quality, and others that go beyond the narrow issue here that sparked the original comment. I hang out at WP:PNT and think about translation there and in other venues (both on, and off-wiki) and I've been thinking about how to better organize this in a way to improve the encyclopedia generally, and capitalize on all the talent and interested people we have here and assemble a group of those who are interested to discuss that. I know there's a WikiProject Translation, but for what I have in mind, I'm not sure if that's the right place for it, as I think this is something else, but anyway (sorry, I'm rambling; it's late!) let's keep in touch about this, if you would like to.

Back to the original topic: I understand your PoV, and in a pool of 3600 articles, it's not so important if one article more or less gets kept or not (with the exception that I hate to nuke ones that editors have worked long and hard on, unless policy really requires it) so if you want to restrike to keep this one it's fine by me, or tell me and I'll do it. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 08:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

My confusion; no need to restrike E L Levi, it's still struck as you left it; I've been doing so many of these lately, can't remember which way is up! Mathglot (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Librarians -- especially academic librarians -- have the distinctive requirement to be able to deal with material about which they have only the scantiest knowledge--there were about 100 professional librarians at my university, and we were expected to be able to understand the requirements of about 1000 faculty, all of whom had a world-class specialized knowledge that we could not hope to match--even those of us who became librarians after a research career had only mastered one special field, not 10 of them. This is obviously a good background for working at WP. Publishers have a similar skill, and so do reporters. This included the need to work with a range of languages--some of the faculty had an extremely impressive range indeed, but still we collected in more languages than was presently represented. But librarians do not have to truly understand the details of a book in order to catalog it, just understand it well enough to figure out what it is about and the level of the analysis. I've taught librarians also, and though no one can actually teach these abilities, I did explain to my students that if they were to win the respect of faculty, they had to at least know how to pronounce properly the words of their various specialties. (Thus I can spell and pronounce chemical and biological names much better than I can ordinary English) The same is of course true of many non-academic fields--you have to at least know the talk. So I will boldly attempt anything unless I know by experience I will make a fool of myself.

There's a difference among the various WPs. deWP is known for insisting on a solid university level of German, and we don't expect anything more than high school level literacy. We deal more than any other WP with people who cannot really write the language, and within limits, we encourage them. Fortunately, we have a very wide range of language and other specialists, and there is very little we cannot find someone to deal with. (The problem in that in some fields and languages there are very few of them, and they may not be representative of the range of POVs) By experience, I've learned some fields where I can , and cannot, trust the available WPedians, both here and at their own language WPs. I am very reluctant to delete anything the de or fr WPs consider notable --but this does not hold at all for some of the other European language WPs.

Anyway, that's where I come from intellectually. I see you understand, and I appreciate it. DGG ( talk ) 09:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) David, that's an interesting analysis, thanks. I'd noticed that there are many of us librarians or retired librarians editing Wikipedia, and had thought it was connected with our urge to make knowledge accessible, along with an interest in cross-references etc, but you've reminded me of our professional ability to deal with sources of information in subjects we don't understand, and up to a point in languages we don't understand. One of my first tasks as a graduate trainee librarian, many years ago, was to catalogue and classify a couple of shelves-full of books in Macedonian, with some highschool knowledge of Russian and a Macedonian-English dictionary: they'd been donated from Skopje and the chap on whose office shelves they were waiting needed the space. I've set myself the challenge of creating an article for every editathon of WP:Women in Red, whether or not it's an area I know (or care!) much about: it's an interesting exercise! PamD 21:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Robichaux

DGG,

I see the Chad Robichaux page has been nominated for deletion. You stated that, "promotional bio. full of puffery and uncited praise. The athletic career does not seem to meet the requirements,and there is nothing else substantial. I would not have accepted this from AfC."

Thank you for your feedback on the article. I made some edits to the page to remove any puffery. It don't understand, however, your other reasons for this being deleted. Can you help me? As I read the biography for living person page this seems to fall in line with the requirements and the coverage doesn't fall under "routine coverage" as described.

You are the expert, so however I can learn and make this page better I will gladly hear.

TO REPLY

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for reviewing my article. Yavarai (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

On this day, 10 years ago...

Wishing DGG a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Lepricavark (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Beer and bread fueling your labors. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Your user page

I was just looking at your user page and I must say, you have some interesting reading on there. Thank you for sharing! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

We've got a problem

OK. I looked at the famous February 2017 RFC on SCHOOLOUTCOMES, analyzed it some also did some thinking on my own dime. My full unfinished take is here, but don't click that link, it's long. In summary:

• FWIW WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is indeed accurate. Of 35 randomly sampled the result was 34-1 Keep (or maybe 34-0, 29-1, 29-0 depending on how you count).
• FWIW there are valid reasons to cite WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES I think. 1) it's valid to say "this works, let's keep doing it", 2) it's valid to say "not this shit again, its a timesink, let's not do it" 3) the community has consistently expressed its opinion on the general question for 15 years, and that counts. 4) maybe others I didn't think of. It's a matter of opinion, but reasonable opinion that one can disagree with but not just blow off, I would say.
• Examining the February 2017 RFC, I found that the closers made a mistake -- a bad one. They said "Citing SCHOOLOUTCOME... has been rejected by the community", but that's not actually true; it wasn't (I'm pretty sure; I'm still working on analyzing this, and it will take some hours; but it appears so at this point).
• Therefore people are being given a bum steer, I would say. The poor admin over at the Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 May 10#DRV for Kent School is having do deal with a shitshorm, and its not his fault. He followed what is written: "Firstly, I think the new language at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is unequivocal: Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist"

This is a problem IMO.

I didn't say this in public, but I have dark suspicions about the people who closed the February 17 RfC. Be that as it may, we can at least say that they demonstrated lack of acuity and diligence. As someone who has closed a couple RfC where I took a week (not 40 full hours, but still), I was appalled to see statements like "many arguments didn't make sense and were ignored". Man, that is not how you adjudicate a hugely visible and important RfC! I mean at least don't say that out loud. If you're too busy do to it right don't do it.

The key point is that the closer said "Citing SCHOOLOUTCOME... has been rejected by the community", but that isn't true, apparently (still working on this, but pretty sure it is not true). Mendacity or... lacking acuity... doesn't matter. They used this (untrue ) statement to make or authorize significant changes to a couple of pages, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.

My inclination is to roll back these changes and cite User:Herostratus/Understanding SCHOOLOUTCOMES as justification. Whether WP:BRD applies after three months, I don't know... doubt it. My inclination could also get me in a heap of trouble. I'd rather let jack do it. If I'm going to do it, I need cover. I have enough enemies already.

But it's important enough to not just shrug off IMO. As a matter of principle the whole affair frosts me, for one thing. Four guys supervoting on a highly visible RfC is toxic to community feeling. As a matter of practice, leaving this alone will probably result (after much wasteful drama, and admins being caught in the middle) with a blow to our coverage of high schools outside the first world.

So what to do next? Herostratus (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

What to do next is to vigorously defend all plausible articles, while letting the very weakest go. I'm willing to accept literally that "citing SA doesn't have consensus" Focus on the rest of the RfC, that in practice we do always keep them. Since nothing in that whole section of common outcomes is policy or even guideline, just advice. I wouldn't bother trying to upset or reconsider the RfC=, no matter how aelf-contradictory its conclusion. Policy & guidelines are important concepts in hierarchical organizations, but at WP, policy is what we do unless there's a very good reason otherwise, and a guideline is what we usually do., unless we decide not to. Usage makes the policies sand the guidelines. Even so , notability isn't even a policy, but a guideline for one part of the real policy, WP:NOT INDISCRIMINATE, and the so-called GNG is just one possible way to apply WP:N. We can use it if it helps. I don't thing it often does, because experience shows how easy it is to manipulate the details to get whatever result is desired. It's a way of arguing, not a useful guide. If I were more cynical, I'd support it, because it would serve my interests, as I have considerable skill and experience in arguments using it in both directions. NOT INDISCRIMINATE is an important and in my opinion necessary policy, but the details of how we choose to apply it it are what affects the results. Just don't cite it. Cite the facts, as you just did in the first sentence above: We always keep them, unless there are unusual circumstances. It's a convention justified by its utility. Remember, as WP idiosyncratically uses the term, "notability " says nothing about actual merit. It's a term of art, meaning only "worth keeping in the encyclopedia".I wish we had never started using it, but instead, said what we meant.

I cannot explain the existence of the current push against high schools. It has the effect of clogging up AfD and preventing proper consideration of the real problems here, which are promotionalism and fan support of the transiently popular. I hope that isn't the intent, but rather am misguided faith in ideological purity. WP is not the place for ideological purity. WP is driven by consensus, and the essence of consensus is compromise, not rigour. Those wh owant rigour wshould go elsewhere.

But consensus has a weakness--it an be defeated by zealots. The only defense is for sensible people to stay with their purpose, and argue each dispute as it comes up. At WP, success goes to the most persevering, Think of it as those who care the most, not those who are most stubborn. who are assumed to care the most. I was raised in a tradition of political activism, and what I was taught was: always appear at every opportunity. Let's see who has the real majority. Otherwise the minority of zealots rule, as they currently do in what I still think to be my country. DGG ( talk ) 07:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Collaboration products newsletter: 2017-05

Latest news from the Wikimedia Collaboration team, about Notifications, Flow and Edit Review Improvements. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you.

What's new?

• “New Filters for Edit Review” beta released: As of May 9, the New Filters for Edit Review beta has been released to all wikis. The beta lets users review edits on Recent Changes using an easier and more powerful interface and many new tools, including user-defined highlighting and, on some wikis, predictive filters powered by ORES, a machine-learning program. You must opt in to the beta to try it out.
• More features coming soon: The New Filters are still very much in development. In addition to fixing bugs and making adjustments (here’s our current to-do list), we’re actively adding new features, many at users’ request. A few notable additions you can look for this month: A cool tool for saving filter settings; a “Watchlisted pages” filter; a “Flagged Revisions” filter (for some wikis only); a “Last revision” filter.

• In the medium-term: By the end of summer, we plan to complete a suite of improvements that will, among other things: incorporate all the remaining Recent Changes tools into the new filtering interface; create new ways for reviewers to move back and forth through the filter queue; implement a “Reverted” filter; and, finally, bring the New Filters UI and tools to Watchlist.
• Have time for a talk? We're looking for people we can interview about their experiences with the new beta. If you’re a regular user of Recent Changes and have tried the new features—and if you can spare an hour to chat in English with our design researcher—please email dchenwikimedia.org with the subject line “user interview.” Let us know how to get in touch with you and what time zone (city, country...) you’re in.
• Wish you had ORES on your wiki? Some of the more interesting New Filters for Edit Review features are dependent on the machine-learning service ORES, which is available only on a small but growing list of wikis. For ORES to work on a wiki, volunteers from that wiki must train it by scoring some thousands of sample edits. Here’s a link that explains how the process works and how you can get it started on your wiki.

Edit Review Improvements [More information • Help pages]

...

Collaboration team's newsletter prepared by the Collaboration team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

American Jewish Anti-Bolshevism

Can you take a look at this please. I've prodded it because I'm sure it's an amalgam of chunks of text text copied from the one source that's used but I don't have the book. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung, did you notice there's a snippet view of the book on Google Books? It's not great but maybe good enough to scan for copyvio.

(later) Oops, maybe not - it's volume 1 and the article uses volume 2 or 3. Anyway here's the link [4]. - Bri (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Kudpng, it cannot simultaneously be OR and copyvio. And if it is not copyvio, then I do not see it as OR, but the summary of information based on a book with other sources used as well.Thestyle, with the long quotations, and the manner of referencing, suggests that it's a term paper. The snippet view is useless, it's from a quotation in the book. I tried other phrases, only ones from the quotation bring up the book. I suspect its in part a paraphrase., at least as far as organization goes. It covers a narrower scope than the current title; I moved it to American Jewish Anti-Bolshevism during the Russian Revolution. I think the way to proceed is to list it at Copyright problems DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

contemporary artists articles still unassessed as keep

I've been avoiding these as likely lost causes but we may as well deal with whatever we've got. Not sure what the agenda is tomorrow for you but here are some of my current art articles, in addition to that one about the guy who cast bronzes. Oh and a librarian for you: Ana_Santos_Aramburo. And also Dolors_Lamarca

Keep?

• Venecia, Puente de Rialto (Giorgio de Chirico) - es - painting `1950, needs an editor for flowery language if kept
• Inmaculada_Concepción_(Murillo,_1670) - I did some work on this, but is the Fundation Carlos Slim proof of notability? --- translation looking uglier than I thought
• Alsatian Orphan - Rodin, I cleaned up the english
• Marcela_Cernadas - never heard of her but she looks notable; at least has content
• Jacqueline_Lacasa - runs a national art museum in Uruguay; english was horrifying and is now just bad. Read everything twice, found some cognates
• Regina Aprijaskis - as above
• André Dekeijser Belgian-Congolese sculptor
• Marie Helene Aarestrup-esp please check titles of works and exhibitions
• Lot_and_his_Daughters,_with_Sodom_and_Gomorrah_Burning what's the name of the museum? I don't think that's the official translation

Yes I do realize that 1670 is not contemporary and neither is Rodin, but hey if you're going to be in an art museum -- any suggestions on any of these will be great. I will add to these as I go tonight.

leaning meh unless much improved

• Faunesa_de_pie - rodin but I dont trust it
• Venecia,_Puente_de_Rialto_(Giorgio_de_Chirico) - another one that seems to be another bad translation of a museum catalog; 1950 Chirico
• Hafshejan_Elamite_brick - no doubt notable but I can't figure out how to fix, maybe you?
• Pietro Bazzanti e Figlio Art Gallery - I find it interesting but you know someone will say it's promo, and it doesn't seem to be that well-written
• The_Queuing_Continues

already struck but possibly of interest depending on who you are talking to

• Mexico and the Mexicans
• Wing_of_a_European_Roller
• Alberto da Veiga Guignard
• Night Travellers at a Cross

just baffling

• Aurelio_Gonzato patented phallic device which did something or other, sounds like knxt toys I used to buy for my son
• Evgeny_Ksenevich - definitely needs editing but I don't speak those languages or know that art, either one
• Altar_Wings_of_Roudníky--looks important but much is mysterious

kind of rough but possibly worth an effort

• Pablo_Zelaya_Sierra
• Jorge_Riveros ---very long, probably too long and in the name of god isn't there a less depressing picture?
• Apollo_(System_Copernicus)

OK so. That's enough for anyone even given superb powers of delegation. This is not homework, btw, just what I am working on, so if you have other stuff to do then fine. For all I know you are giving the keynote and were thinking along the lines of picking someone's brain for ten minutes. The art stuff is however to say the least extremely uneven and This is where I am with it. Some of the articles probably cannot be saved and also the stuff out of Carlos Slim foundation is sounding kind of sloppy. Or maybe someone just translated a lot of their catalogue? Anyway, there's that. I would like to keep the Rodin but it's where I am seeing this. Elinruby (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I don't know the background to this but had a look at a couple out of curiosity:

Faunesa_de_pie - looks as if Standing female faun and Kneeling female faun should get a mention in The Gates of Hell: lots of ghits for various versions of this sculpture. The Spanish wikipedia article is longer than this English stub.

Aurelio Gonzato - looks like an exact translation of the Italian wikipedia article. Don't see any sign of phallic device - but perhaps that's in some other context I don't know about. PamD 07:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@PamD: First of all, pleased to meet you. And, you are right about phallic, thank you. I apparently looked at "metallic planes" way way way too fast. I still can't figure out what it did though, and he patented it? was it like a transformer? Became different things? Any thoughts welcome. Do you speak Italian? Meanwhile the context to this is that DGG told me on a different earlier talk page that he is going to an edit-a-thon at the Metropolitan museum tomorrow and it so happens that I have a bunch of art articles in this list of bad machine translations scheduled for deletion, except get this, some of them are fairly excellent articles... and then there is the stuff totally beyond my own horizons where I can't tell if it's too technical or too finnish, etc. So. what I have been doing is going down the list to make sure nobody tosses the astrophysics and cryptology articles, then I took some French under my wing, then nobody was doing Portuguese so....Please feel free to jump in. The key question is whether it would be easier to fix a given article or to start over. This is of course subjective but over a couple of iterations we have identified a lot stuff that is fine, other stuff not worth the headaches, or a whole lot more stuff somewhere in between, as with the articles above, where at least two editors appear to have machine translated museum catalogs or something possibly copyvio. And there are weirdnesses that often a sign of something wrong that someone made wronger trying to fix it. Anyway I have talked to DGG about some of these articles and hey if he is going to be at an editathon....if he potentially can enlist some editors at the editathon I thought I would share some of my bemusements. The Rodin piece is definitely worth an article but I am not sure I believe what this one says right now. Anyway, we have entire languages and fields of study that aren't being looked at much right now... we got Tang poets and Roman fortifications and WW2 missiles, origin of life, Chinese warlords, holocaust massacres in lithuania... need arabic, gujarati, chinese. Bulgarian and Portugese would also be very nice. Even if you only speak english you could still fish the Women in Red Articles out of there and that would help a bunch too. Elinruby (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Elinruby: Unfortunately i was too much involved in other thing at the museum editathon to work on any of this. I still would like to, and I will be going back there in a few weeks. There's a NYC chapter meeting Wednesday, and I will mention the project if there's times.

However , I do not think it essential to decide whether or not to keep these translated articles. The purpose of the verification is to see if the basic facts are correctly translated, and whether the article is either OK as is, or worth working on further. Some of the participants in this project are of the opinion that all machine translations are hopelessly unreliable, and I think they're wrong . Certainly they are almost always in need of some degree of rewriting (more or less, depending on the language=-the Scandinavian ones are usually very close, and the ones from the languages of India very rough indeed.) A few disastrous problems in meaning have been demonstrated, so they all do do need checking. The problems are not just linguistic but cultural--not knowing the corresponding titles or special meanings in other countries. An interesting example is the very different meaning someone in the US, Russia, or even England is likely to think of first for the term "Civil War"--or what someone in a particular country thinks is met by "War of Independence", (Such problems turn up not only in machine translation, but manual translation by those whose knowledge of one of the two languages ins adequate , and even original writing by someone with inadequate command of English--or indeed even a native speaker working a a field where they do not know the specialist terminology. Our Wikipedia has had probably hundreds of thousands of such articles submitted, and probably a few thousand serious problems remain. Very few articles here have been meticulously checked against the sources by someone expert in the field, and this is why we say that nobody should use WP for serious research.

But those who are expert in both languages--a few of them quite specifically professional translators--want to use their professional standards , just as many of us want to have perfect English grammar in articles, or perfectly formatted citations. But WP is the encyclopedia written by amateurs, not experts. We want to be as good as we reasonably can, but the standard is not academic perfection.

the usual errors in machine translation can be dealt with by amateurs and the level of knowledge of the source knowledge necessary for this depends on the subject. I can translate basic geographical articles from a number of languages, but I don't think there's any where I would be fully capable of doing justice to a complex philosophical or historical article. We o need our language experts, but not for everything. Anyone working with machine translations of say, the Spanish WP, knows the likely errors in tense and gender--but also should know the somewhat lower standards of notability and citation in that WP, and the vagueness of some articles written there by those who may know the language, but not the subject. Even a WP of the very highest standards, such as the deWP, whichI think in general quite superior to ours', uses general references in cases where we would insist on specifics (and in many case I think they it is they who are right about that, not the enWP, but still we must add referencing to satisfy our own expectations, whatever we think of them.

There's a sort of panic when people here come upon a set of particularly weak or problematic articles, leading to an over-hasty decision to delete all of them, such as attempt at the WP:AN to delete one particular editor's very brief but almost always accurate one or two sentence stubs about clearly notable scientists. The people advocating mass deletion can easily find a few conspicuously awful problems, but they're usually just a few % (there have been mass deletions that have been fully justified, such as a large group of articles on slime molds using obsolete taxonomy where most would have to be rewritten from scratch, or a group of geographical stubs using a incorrect procedure for getting material from a census. There's a saying here, better no article at all than a bad one. This is rational, if "" is used to mean awful in one sense or another. It is not rational if "bad" is used to mean inadequate. This is a place where inadequate article get fixed slowly over time. There are a great many editors here who want to improve a small part of an article , but not write an entire article. And an inadequate article on a place or non-living person can still give enough identification to help the user who knows nothing at all. DGG ( talk ) 13:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@DGG: it's ok, I knew you might and the sorting process was actually somewhat helpful in itself. And Pam came by to look at a few for me so overall it was a win. I do have some specific questions about that list if you have a moment. But I'll mention first that yes, I agree with you, but nonetheless if wp is getting crap articles because a software tool allows someone to make them faster than they can be fixed, it might be an idea to improve the process so the articles need less fixing whether they come fast or slow. I do have some thoughts about that since I have been doing some of that cleaning for a long time, but for now I am just trying to get some articles adopted before we blow up the others and I start asking you what I need to do to get rid of X2. So, in the goal of getting some articles adopted let me come back to that lost for a moment. I made some posts on the talk page last night and would especially like to know what you think of the one about Tunis. I would also like to know what you suggest about the Olympic athletes and the 18th century mathematicians? Thanks for all you do. Elinruby (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

X2 was in my opinion a major error, and what we need to do is not delete the articles, but delete X2, and reject the approach to WP on which X2 is based. Given that we're stuck with it, as we are with all of our over-hasty ill-informed decisions based on inadequate evidence. There will be more--our manner of decision making is subject to such decisions unless they are immediately and vigorously opposed, and get widespread attention. Whether every verifiable Olympic athlete should be notable is an open question, but WP at this time treats them as such. If the original language source or the translation appears to verify, the article must be kept. The articles on 18th century mathematicians follow the same rules as later ones: if they held a major university appointment, or had notable disciples, or published important works, or have something named after them, they will meet WP:PROF.

Unfortunately, there are at least two other situations where I need to do similar rescue: the attempt at WP:AN to remove all the 1000 or so subs by a particular contributor on the basis that 1% of them are inaccurate, and the attempt to delete G13 without looking at the drafts to see whether any are salvageable or even ready for mainspace. I feel overwhelmed to the extent that I am almost unable to work on any of them, and need to force myself to work here at all. DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I hear you I hear you Elinruby (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Help with my St. Vincent (musician) edit and breakdown in getting it to stick Comment

Hi David! It's SheridanFord from the Wikimedia NYC chapter. Last month you offered to help me problem-solve around this edit from way back in January. I got stuck with the edit-war around it and haven't come back to it. I want to finish adding to this article. I spent 2 hours while recovering from foot surgery doing this work. Here's the old version that was reverted. SummerPhD2.0 and her bots kept reverting me. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._Vincent_(musician)&oldid=762400209.

Any insights would be greatly appreciated. I showed my edit to several academics who thought it was neutral in perspective given the sources I used. I am still learning the norms and values of the crowd around here. Thanks in advance for your help. Best --sheridanford (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I've started, but it will take a while.First step: are there 2007 sources? - DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Things like this are what I find confusing...

A philanthropist who donates millions to research isn't worthy of inclusion in WP, but a film that hasn't been distributed yet, such as Bank Chor, is worthy. I don't get it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Our notability guidelines for pop culture subjects (celebs, film, sport) are very gameable, especially so when the local media are – ahem – particularly friendly towards the pop culture subjects. Because of the futility, and general ennui, I don't usually try to fix those articles anymore. - Bri (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I still support articles on billionaires, but anything less does not much impress me unless they've accomplished something something. "philanthropist" is a very easy claim--as I see it, it requires active participation, not just money. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand, DGG - but the point of my question was about a film that was produced, not yet distributed to the public or seen, and is considered worthy of inclusion in our encyclopedia. Do you support that? If so, why, because that's the part I'm not understanding. ^{Atsme📞📧} 09:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Films from India are a problem, because the article written here are usually inadequate, even for important films, the sources are hopelessly contaminated by advertising, and there is generally no practical way to search for additional sources. In consequence, I no longer attempt to work with them. The film was discussed a few days ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bank Chor, A rational case was made for the importance of the film, even if the author of the article was unaware that he should have shown it was in principal photography. The film is supposed to open next month. There were 2 keep comments and no delete comments; the experienced admin, Jo-Jo Eumerus, quite reasonably closed keep. On the basis of the material presented, I would have closed the same way. If you disagree, you can file another AfD in a month or so; there is no point going to Del Rev, because the consensus there will almost certainly say just what I did, that no other close was plausible.

If you think particular films are not notable, use deletion processes, If you think the standards are too low, try to get them raised. If you think (as I do) that the sources are unreliable, try to get consensus for that--but be aware they are generally the only practical sources we have for material from that country. If you think you can find better, that would be a major step forward, and a very helpful thing for WP.

My own view of the relative importance of different topic fields has been stated many times: we are a collection of smaller communities, and the basic rule for coexistence is to tolerate each other. My own view of the usefulness of the GNG as a standard for inclusion has also been stated many times: utterly worthless except perhaps as a last resort. DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Userspace drafts

Hi there, DGG. I understand that you feel strongly that "We can and should delete drafts when there is no hope of an article", but you do realize that the outcome of last year's WP:CONSENSUS, reflected in WP:STALE, is something different, right? That WP:GNG do not apply in user- and draft- space and that neglect of a draft wasn't grounds for deletion, etc.... Do you think it might be better to change the policy, rather than going around it? Because that's how the SD requests look to me. I'm not being tendentious, either; just trying to have good faith dialogue. Newimpartial (talk) 06:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not mention the GNG in these arguments; I agree it does not apply outside article space, and I have in fact argued that it should not apply. As for speedy, I have never listed a speedy for a draft or users space except for the reasons that are appropriate there, which include G11. It is true I think we should use G11 much more energetically. I remind you that while the RfCs said that G13 does not apply except in draft space, they did say that "For userspace drafts where notability is unlikely to be achieved, consensus is that they should not be kept indefinitely. However, the community did not arrive at a specified time duration." and, for userspace drafts, " They can be deleted, but it should be done on grounds different than solely the age of the draft or the period the draft has not been edited." Therefore, the outcome for individual items is subject to consensus at the MfD. That's always been the case for deletion process. The two fundamental principles involved are WP is an encyclopedia , and IAR.

Simultaneous, I very strong disapprove of the use of G13 for improvable drafts, and most especially for drafts that are already good enogu hfor article space but where inappropriately declined. We need to find a workable system for proper notification and working on them.It and everything else about AfC would be helped by clearing out the hopeless. DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

OK; I can see where you're coming from. And I agree that MfD is the place to adjudicate these deletion requests. But that is why I have the problem I do with speedy G11s - it seems to me that many of them aren't G11 at all, but just wimpy early drafts; in cases where they really are WP:SPAM I have no problem seeing them deleted by consensus. But in my deletion review, you say that User:BucaFan3/Shy Kidx "would be a good Speedy anywhere" - but I don't see how it is WP:SPAM at all. It's just a baby article lol. Newimpartial (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

On a related note, can I just say that it is difficult for me to find you so insightful here <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maureen_Seaton>, and not just because you agree with me :), but so cavalier about userspace deletion here <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_May_28>. I get whiplash. lol. Newimpartial (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I have a high regard for keeping anything that might be a promising article, and a low tolerance for anything that's going to remain useless. Obviously, views on what falls into these categories will differ. G11 is a criterion which is not as obvious as it claims to be, but it's our best defense against those who would debase the encyclopedia. My priorities vary with time as our needs differ. Ten years ago it was critical to supportg broad inclusiveness, now to resist promotionalism. But I shall look again at the del rev. DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC) and I did. your argument did have some merit. DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

More generally, as with most guidelines and policies in WP, the meaning of the deletion criteria depends a great deal on how they are interpreted. The interpretation is done by the accumulated and sometimes changing consensus the talk pages of the noticeboards and policy/guideline pages, and by the very variable decisions at individual instances. The result is sometimes a considerable gap between the formal wording and the effectual applications of it. Some things are interpreted very narrowly, some very broadly; some very strictly, and some very permissively.. Individual people differ, and the consensus is affect by which individual show up at a given argument. Every one of us who participates in these arguments has a different view of it. That said, there are some constants: the clearest example is that BLP tends to be interpreted strictly and broadly (more broadly than I really think justified); copyvio also strictly (and again more broadly than I think necessary--we are much less permissive than USLaw about fair use); most speedy criteria somewhat more broadly than they are written; WP:V is often disregarded unless someone protests,

The result, of course, is an encyclopedia full of inconsistencies, with consequent difficult for new users in figuring out just what is permitted. But this is inherent in the underlying working method of the encyclopedia -- we make our own rules, we make what exceptions we please, and there is no person or group that who can definitively settle disputes about content. The only reason this works is because of mutual tolerance, including the rule that admins must follow the consensus interpretation whether or not they like it. There is consequently a strong feeling against individual who try too insistently to make a point overemphasizing any one thing--they disturb what little equilibrium we have. Working with deletion processes involves tolerating an especially large amount of ambiguity and stupid decisions. Those who want a more predictable environment, would do better to work on vandalism or copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

This discussion has been very cordial. Do you have any thoughts about my new ANI? Newimpartial (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Commented,. I think at this you will learn more by just watching some AFD discussion than by asking questions. atching is safe, but watch a good while before you start to comment there. The best course for you at the moment, however, is just to do something else for a while, like write or improve some articles. DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I will be back editing and writing draft articles forthwith, but I won't put any new articles into userspace until I feel that I can stop looking over my shoulder for deletionists. You know, I lurked at MfD for about a week, on and off, without commenting, and really felt that I grasped the letter of the policies. Now I understand the letter plays into my own idiosyncrasies, and isn't the main thing that counts. But my reason for lurking in the first place? Fear of deletion lol. Newimpartial (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for reviewing my newly created article and encouraging a new editor like me. Regards Yavarai (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

CVs

What is the preferred format to reference CVs? I would think external link rather than in line citation, but thought I would ask. Article in question is Robert R. Caldwell. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I usually add both. It's both a RS for most purposes, and a proper external link. I also of course add an EL to their web page at the university, but often the CB is not linked from there. I consider the formal CV a much more authoritative source than the university website. The formal DV id sn officisal document, and people get hired on the basis of it. In 11 years here there has only been one case of a false (or even misleading) cv for an actual academic. (politicians are another matter). For the university website, department PR staff sometimes have a role in it. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello

You stood out as the sole user who I thought may be possibly amendable on this whole draft article ordeal. Part of the reason I've chosen to not continue it is a belief that nothing I produce, at least by myself, will be satisfactory to the detractors and cynics who have opposed some of my past additions and for whom I was confident would resume this pattern. I did want to ask what qualifies a person to receive a sub article; do the Early life of Frank Sinatra and Early life of Joseph Stalin exist because the main articles are long? I've found myself perplexed by that question since that happen, and I'm seeing fit to live with the mystery. Informant16 June 2, 2017 'still needs reply

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for reviewing my article about Sukhdev Rajbhar. Regards Yavarai (talk) 10:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Scholars vs block evasion

The author of these articles about academics, Ethan G. Lewis, Nina Pavcnik, Eric Edmonds, Leila Agha, Simone Schaner, is currently under SPI for block evasion here. These articles could all be deleted WP:G5, but I'm not sure that they must be deleted. I've PRODed a couple of them, but a further look reveals that hey might just in fact be notable. Thoughts? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

the current tags seem right. The full professors are notable, not the others. I commented at the spi. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

A quick note on patrolling

Hello! I saw your post here wishing that some kind of keyword sorting might be imposed upon unpatrolled pages to help us patrol pages in our realm of interest. I just wanted to leave a quick note here in case you missed the recent conversation at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard where someone pointed out that you can use User:AlexNewArtBot to do exactly that. For example, here are the search results for the New Jersey keyword search. It'd be nice if this functionality was integrated into the NewPagesFeed interface, but in the meantime it definitely helps me to be more efficient with patrolling. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

yes,I'm aware of that, and a simplified version oft he bot was more or less what I have in mind. . Unfortunately, very few workgroups aare actually active, and fewer actually use i; locating the results within the workgroups is not very efficient for anyone else, as most of us interested in deletion process have altogether too many workgroups to follow.. The bot needs to be used to provide a more systematic approach,with the material in one place.

What I had in mind was either a collection of pages covering all, after the model of categorized AfD discussions, the articles , using the bot , or simply using the bot to add subject keywords to the new article list. I'll comment further. I apologize for not having had the time yesterday--but I've also found that sometimes just suggesting an idea and letting others develop it to be a very effective way of getting interest. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you think a tool that did something like this would be of any practical use? I haven't done any serious NPP myself for about a decade, and it was pretty rare back then for pages to hang around unreviewed long enough for someone to categorize them. —Cryptic 01:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

comment needed DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The New Page Patrol backlog

Your speech here was a masterpiece. A shame it was only on a user's talk page. Relax for 15 minutes and read WP:KNPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I will copy over a revised version somewhere. I think of it as a rough draft, and I was very tired when I did it. I has not followed the previous ANI stuff.

A cookie for you!

Thank you for editing with Black Lunch Table at Wiki Loves Pride! Heathart (talk) 02:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Collaboration products newsletter: 2017-06

What's new?

Integrated Filters

• The team is moving full speed ahead on a follow-up project to the New Filters for Edit Review beta dubbed "Integrated Filters." The name refers to the fact that we are integrating the Recent Changes tools that currently remain in the old user interface (like Namespace and Tag filters), along with some tools and capabilities from Watchlist and elsewhere, into the new Recent Changes interface.
• You can get an overview of the Integrated Filters projects, and the general release strategy, on the description page of the project Phabricator board. Among the more interesting new capabilities:
  • Category filters: We'll be adding the ability to filter by category. This is a little tricky, since wiki categories often work in a somewhat counter-intuitive way, with the broadest categories returning the fewest results—because categories like "Science" or "Art" tend to contain not articles but other categories. So we're exploring solutions where a category search will crawl at least a layer or two down the category treat to, hopefully, bring back more useful results. [5]
  • User filters: We're adding the ability to filter by any username, similar to what's available already on the the User Contributions page. [6]
  • Live update: Users will have the ability to look at a more or less continuous flow of changes. This is a much requested feature that we expect will open up new possibilities for Recent Changes, especially for patrollers who want to see vandalism or other changes as they happen. While the updates won't truly be "live," the page updates will be frequent, similar to the way real-time tools (like RTRC or LiveRC) works. [7]

Edit Review Improvements [More information • Help pages]

Recent changes

• It is now possible to save your favorite filters sets by using bookmarks. [8]
  • This feature documentation can be translated.
• It is possible to filter only the last edits done on a page on the Recent Changes page. [9]

• A "Watchlisted pages" filter group now lets reviewers use Recent Changes, and all its tools, to patrol changes to pages they've Watchlisted. If you have any feedback about how useful this is nor isn't—especially given that we plan to add the new filtering interface to the Watchlist page — let us know.
• There were issues with the tools still in the older filtering UI — like the Namespace filter and the number of results selectors. These have been fixed. [10]

Notifications [More information • Help pages]

Future changes

• On the Beta feature page, the activation message has been review to emphase the fact that the unstructured wikitext page will be archived. [11]

Collaboration team's newsletter prepared by the Collaboration team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

08:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Moral supervenience

In my opinion, this article reads like a term paper. I flagged it once as needing a rewrite to sound more like an encyclopedic entry rather than OR. Of course, I could be wrong. The creator is being exceptionally rude and insuting. Thoughts? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

its a complicated concept, and I think it needs to be explained clearly that the term is a specialized term with only a very specialized meaning used in the field. Both it and the general article on supervenience need considerable further clarification/ DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Opinion...

What do you feel about FKB (band), Giulia Lupetti, Pyper America, Boutir and SevenHills Hospital? I was inclined to tag the last two as WP:G11.The rest looks to me as borderline promotional.Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 11:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, here's some more--Guerrilla crosswalks,Genos Research,Beirut (art space) and Starover Blue.Winged Blades ^Godric 11:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

That's enough for the next few days to keep us busy upon!Winged Blades ^Godric 11:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Atsme; so that he may join us!Winged Blades ^Godric 11:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

My only caution about bands, record labels, fan pages, music, celebrity spin-offs, etc. can be summed up in this diff which resulted in a bit of a rollback'' but it's mainstream thinking nonetheless. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I try to not get involved in fan areas. WP has always been very intensive in a few fields, and I think it best to leave them alone, on the basis that others may think the stuff I am interested in to be just as intrinsically unimportant. DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I am deeply disturbed by your apparent admission of moral cowardice, DGG. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

If you mean I do not go around here looking for fights, I admit the charge. If you mean that I am prepared to admit that other's views on importance or anything else may be valid although different from my own, I think any other attitude arrogant. If you mean that I do not seek to eliminate articles on let's say wrestling or tv serial episodes or individual pop songs because I do not like the genre, I think my view coincides with the principles of WP. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Are my eyes deceiving me?

Please look at the first section, then look at these 2 comments at AfD ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not entirely certain he realizes it's inconsistent. Some of his comments at AfDs seem to have only slight relevance to the situation. DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Headache

Hi DGG. Do you or any of your watchers know any good experienced editors that work on articles about religious denominations, and that would interested in cleaning up Open Episcopal Church, which is apparently an LGBT-friendly denomination? The article is a mess (and seemingly POV) and the citations include a lot of primary and social media stuff. I somehow took pity on the two newbies squabbling over it when it came up at a recent declined RFAR. I've helped out a little at the talk page but I lack sufficient interest to actually help clean up the article. Any help or advice would be appreciated; I don't really know of a good go-to editor on this. It doesn't actually necessarily need an editor interested in the subject matter; just could possibly make do with someone who enjoys clearing things out and cleaning things up. Softlavender (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC); edited 14:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Softlavender a suggestion for you: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I've now done some copyediting on it; I think right now what mostly remains to be done is more specialized weeding out of uncited, badly cited, or problematical text I think. A fair amount of the sourcing is either poor, primary (or self-published), and/or dead & needs checking on Wayback. Also, some of the text is just gibberishy ecclesiastical stuff that needs major overhaul, possibly from someone whose field of interest more closely matches ecclesiastical subjects. Softlavender (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, there are very few religious articles on Wikipedia that in my opinion don't have those issues. I could go on for days about the issues facing articles related to the Catholic Church, but the solution to many of the historical articles in that religion and other major world religions is often to gut and rebuild, which is an option in that case because of how much scholarly work has been done from both secular and religious academics on the history of major religions. I might pop over to the one you're linking here later, but since it appears to be a relatively new denomination that has a smaller membership than the population of town I live in, you aren't likely to find as many secondary sources that can be used to construct a good article. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Speaking of horror religion articles that deserve WP:TNT, another one that came up at a recently declined RFAR or ANI is Religion and sexuality. Again, I took pity and tried to help the squabblers on the talk page, but as far as the article itself, it is so bad I had to tag-bomb it (which I have only ever done once before in my life). At least the Open Episcopal Church is a very modern thing, but too small a thing to have many wiki eyes on it, as you say. I have no personal interest in it. I agree with you about religion articles (especially Christian/Muslim); I generally stay away. Softlavender (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I tried to read the religion and sexuality bit, but the prose is so bad I lost interest and then skimmed to see that it is essentially a bunch of listings. For what it is worth, history of religion articles are actually quite enjoyable as no one really cares enough to fight about them and there are scholarly sources around. My current content project is trying to bring the 17th century papal conclaves to good topic status. The issue there is that until recently, they were all almost entirely based on two self-published sources and a 1930s history of the papacy that modern scholars regard as little more than a gossip rag. They've been pretty easy to fix and don't have many of the issues you have with improving most non-historical religion articles. As for the topic at hand, I'm going through the prose now seeing what I can fix. The talk page conversation might be too much for me, but I can try for the basic ones that at least bring it into compliance with WP:V and WP:NPOV. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• UPDATE: The article in question has been substantially improved, and the tags at the top removed. It's not great, because the text is choppy and many references are either lost to the mists of time or non-existent, plus there is not a lot to report about the tiny denomination (understatement). For those interested in improving fairly important articles, hop over to Religion and sexuality and feast your eyes on that disaster. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • as the article subject is sufficiently broad-scoped, I suggest it be nominated for WP:TAFI. 223.227.122.249 (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC) TAFI nomination made. See here. 223.227.122.249 (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Penny for your thoughts

Slightly related to your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of participants at the Second Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, but do you have thoughts on listing of electors at papal conclaves. As I mentioned in another thread above I've been working through the 17th century ones, which were largely lists based on self-published sources of the electors. My current technique has been removing the lists because they are overwhelming and not from RS. I'd been planning on going back through when I was done with that century and seeing if I can reconstruct the lists as articles from reliable sourcing, but your !vote there has given me second thoughts. Input is welcome. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

uncertain--but in any case they would be part of the article. They must also have sources in Catholic encyclopedia, histories of the papacy, etc. I'd expect everyone who participated was usually the subject of at least one biography, and in the 17th & 18th century I would expect almost all of the sources to be in Italian. DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. I asked because more recent ones have it as separate list articles (see Category:Lists of Papal conclaves). I personally side against the inclusion in the article because naming 50-70 individuals with half of them being red links is less than ideal. I am also just generally list averse in articles, which is why I like checking myself on such things. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

But should they be redlinks? It seems to me that this makes it obvious that there should be articles. I recognize your greater expertise in the area, butsince all bishops even are considered notable here .... DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, most certainly none of them should be red links, though all cardinals being bishops or even all being priests is a 20th century innovation, being a cardinal is notable independent of episcopal status. When there has been a runner-up that doesn't have an article, I've been creating it. I'd do it for all the red links, except I don't have the language skills to do more than the more notable runners-up. I believe the 20th century model we have of not listing all of the individual electors in articles is probably ideal stylistically, but your comment at the AfD above made me reconsider whether the 20th century model of listing them separately was ideal. Following this conversation I think what I would probably settle on as the ideal is mentioning within individual biographies what elections the subject was a part of. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking exactly the same. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Alison Martino page

Hi DGG, I saw you tagged a page I created for deletion Alison Martino for being not notable. That was just a skeleton that I was hoping to build upon. There is a lot more to say about Alison's reputation as being an expert on the Sunset Strip and Los Angeles, which I think is notable. From what I understand, I can remove the tag and then try to beef it up with more sourced information an see if you guys agree then. Is that correct? I've read everything I can and just want to verify. Thank you so much! Ddutkowski (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Ddutkowski, you can do that--it's the purpose of the WP:PROD procedure. Remember that you will need to show the reputation by references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I made updates and I hope I communicated the "notability" with references. Fingers crossed!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddutkowski (talk • contribs) 19:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Mettl page

Hey DGG,

The Mettl page has been put under Articles for deletion by you.nI'd be grateful if you can tell me why it was put for deletion

Many thanks, Debarshi

Debarshi Nayak (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

as it says at the AfD, and as another editor has explained also. it does not seem the company is yet notable. The references are almost entirely press releases, some in the form of newspaper articles, but still essentially repeating the information of the company. You apparently have a conflict of interest, and obviously those with a conflict of interest tend to consider what they do as important. So it may be, but it does not now meet our standards at WP:CORP. DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PayU India

• I have highest of regards on your knowledge of Wikipedia. I am highly participative in your AfD. But this one i do not agree on various grounds.

• You have deleted the One of the Biggest Fintech startup in India. Its like deleting PayPal or Ebay from Wikipedia. There might be article quality issue, but this is no PR stunts, if you even know India, this is by every means follow standards to Encyclopedia or Wikipedia. It is Textbook notable, I will not be surprised if students are being taught in schools taking examples of PayU.
• I know you are very senior and not biased. But are you see every Indian startup or company as advertising. I can show to over 1000 Americans companies here with baseless, blatant promotions, and ridiculous Press coverage being protected in the name of GNC or some other Wikipedia policies.
• Even you have protected many American articles which I have AfD, on what grounds, just because they are covered in Media? or they are American?
• You are an Admin, and this decision does not make any sense. By every means there are some Startups in India which deserves the place here. Else i will be first one to nominate them.
• I am not advocate of any articles here, not for Indian neither for American, but it should be treated similar, if its Indian startup or an Indian Entrepreneurs does not make them automatically non-notable by their place.
• I can give you list of Ridiculous US startups you have protected without any significance as they have, PayU and few others are not promotions, It is a history of Payment.
• You are very intelligent making decision, i will still be participating removing the spam as you tag them. No offence just my view, you are biased in many places, no one can be perfect, neither you are. Sorry If i offended you, but I can not agree on few decision of yours. Light2021 (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Light2021, It is always appropriate to challenge me to explain myself. True, some people here don't like it, but that's a little silly, because this is a place where it is expected and a necessary part of our manner of working. I will always take something like this seriously and give the best answer I can. What's more, sometimes I'm just plain wrong!

I must follow consensus when I close. My role in closing is merely to judge what the consensus of reasonable arguments is, and state it. I may not instead close according to my own opinion. No admin may do that. (Some have been known to do so nonetheless, but it's quite wrong, it is called here a Supervote, and such decisions are usually reversed at Deletion Review)

If I disagree with the consensus, I have 4 choices only: instead of closing, I may give my own opinion, or I may pass it by and let someone else close, or I may list for further discussion, or, if the consensus is clear enough, I may close it according to the consensus as expressed.

the consensus here was clear. Most of the experienced users thought the references insufficiently independent or insubstantial. If that's what they think, rightly or wrongly, that's still the consensus. It had already been relisted once, and it is rarely useful to relist again.

I do not see Indian companies as likely to be non-notable. I do see them as relatively difficult to prove notability by the standards we use, because I consider articles on companies in Indian newspapers as very likely to be PR. I also see most articles on American companies or organizations of any sort in most newspapers as likely to be PR, and I have so argued when relevant. There are more Indian companies with promotional articles being submitted these days, in part because more American companies have learned not to try for articles here. But , as you observe, there are a great many that got into WP in earlier years, and we have not yet removed all of them.

In both cases, I judge by the content. If several articles repeat the same words, they're almost certainly copying it from the press release. If they interview the CEO, and let him say whatever he chooses about the origin and accomplishments of the company, they're an organ for his PR. If they use terms of praise without analysis, they're PR. If the overemphasize minor accomplishments, they're PR. NGOs and similar organizations are even worse in general, because they use cheaper and therefore less skilled press relations people.

But this is irrelevant in this instance. I did not go back to the original sources here, because I was not trying to evaluate the article and decide what I thought about it. I was evaluating the discussion, which is all I'm supposed to do. Unless the discussion looks really weird, I assume the arguments are made in good faith.

If there are any particular keep closes you think I did wrong, let me know--but remember, I must follow the consensus, not the merits. If you think I've argued wrong in any particular case, that's another matter, because most articles I argue are somewhat equivocal. I try to concentrate on the more difficult decisions, and therefore the consensus will not always be with me.

If there are any particular horrible examples from anywhere, that you think I might want to nominate, just tell me.

But let me give my opinion on the actual notability of this company: I think it might well be notable, but I do not think the article shows it. But I see it's an international company and I think it would be much better to write the article about that company first, with a section on hte Indian company. I see that the entire company (I think) of Naspers, which is notable, and so at least a redirect there would be appropriate. It's already mentioned in the article. a redirect would be appropriate. I will make it for both the international company and the Indian one. . Perhaps I should have seen that originally. But then, perhaps someone could have mentioned it in the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for writing and truly appreciate & understand your point. Light2021 (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I looked up some of Mr Magoos' sources and the company does seem notable, although it wasn't clear at first that there was a PayU that was the parent of PayU India. Two things struck me with the voting - not everyone seemed to take the time to read his sources, and of course I'm sure you noticed that TwisterSister voted delete twice, although that didn't affect the final tally. I do notice two biases in Wikipedia - one against Indian companies, which as you pointed out is a function of the press being a bit fawning, but also the fact that some of the articles are written with poor grammar. The other is against businesses - I've taken articles that were tagged for notability and added sources and almost verbatim info from the coverage, and seen the articles subsequently tagged for advertising. Nonetheless, are you able to email me the deleted PayU India text so I can see if it can be fixed? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Reposting in cased you missed my request. Do you have access to the PayU India text, and if so, can you email it to me? I'll take a shot at fixing it and will submit it to AfC, and will let you know here when it's up. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	for the work and contribution. Light2021 (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Baratunde Cola

How do I get my page back for correction to resubmit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsheis2017 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Kingheis2017, it was deleted as an advertisement, but it is also an exact copy of his page at Georgia Tech [12], so it should have been deleted as copyvio also. We cannot include in Wikipedia anything which is published elsewhere, unless it is published under a free license. The page is marked as the copyright of "Georgia Institute of Technology | NanoEngineered Systems and Transport Lab". It is possible that they would release it under the provisions of the Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;, which requires irrevocably giving everyone in the world permission to reprint, reuse and modify the material for any purpose, even commercial. The methods for doing it are explained at WP:DCM. But I would very strongly advise you against it, because the content is so much a promotional page for him that it would need to be almost completely rewritten. He is notable, so it is worth writing a proper article--I advise doing in in Draft space, including only the most significant material and omitting all statements of praise, and all details of his undergraduate career and justifying any claims of "first" by reference to published independent sources unconnected with him or his university. The routine facts of his career can be referenced to his official biography, but everything else needs a specific source for every statement. Include links to his 2 or 3 most cited papers. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood you...

...about MfD - I tried it, and this is what I got. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) Hello Atsme. For Draft: space, MfD would suit if CSD did not work. Since this is a mainspace article, the possibilities are: PROD, CSD, if none of those are appropriate or work, AfD would be the right venue. I hope this helps, —PaleoNeonate - 14:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, ok - so the article has to be in Draft space for the MfD venue. Thanks PaleoNeonate. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: you're welcome. BTW, I checked if the article should also be tagged as an orphan, but I then found two articles linking to it, one Draft: space which would have won this award, Draft:Creately and the organization hosting that award: BCS Sri Lanka Section which also appears to have sourcing issues (in case you'd also like to look at them). —PaleoNeonate - 14:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, really, PaleoNeonate? Well...ahem...those were the ones I actually meant for MfD. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Nader El-Bizri AfD

Considering your experience, your input is welcome at (the very messy AfD page) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nader El-Bizri. Thank you, —PaleoNeonate - 20:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello DGG. I understand your concerns and the reasons for placing warning tags. I also believe you are willing to hear my clarifications. I was not aware that in the course of a discussion I should not make edits. I did this in good faith to improve the article and bring more references. Being new to the Wikipedia protocols and technicalities might have resulted in what messily appears as “disruptive edits”. In real-life I am an academic specializing in philosophy. I do not have a connection with the subject of the article, but I am intellectually interested in his research and of other academics in the field. I used to make occasional edits in philosophy on Wikipedia without adopting a name. I had a bit of time after the end of the semester this summer to contribute to Wikipedia. One of my motives was an incident with a graduate student who used Wikipedia as reference and resulted in negative evaluations of the thesis as per the criteria of reputable universities. Given that I occasionally follow the news of the Wikipedia article being discussed, and those of other academics in related fields, I was concerned about a deletion request being made by a user who did not specialize in academia. I hence became engaged in the process. Given that I am new to this, I tried to find ways to bring this to the attention of experienced Wikipedia editors to serve as independent objective referees/assessors. It became clearer to me as the process was unfolding that it has its internal self-corrective integrity - You are clearly an experienced editor, with sound knowledge as librarian. One side-comment to consider (generally and independently form the article being discussed) is that: “chapters” in anonymously-peer-refereed edited volumes (published by Cambridge, Oxford, Routledge, Brill, etc.) are nearly equivalent to anonymously-peer-refereed “journal articles”, this is the case in the humanities, unlike the criteria of the natural, applied, and social sciences) - I was hesitant at first to write this whole clarification, but I then felt it is vital to do so given the integrity editors like you are bringing to the process, and that clarifying my actions ultimately serves the same purpose, although my contribution to Wikipedia will remain minimal given the limited time I am able to dedicate to it. Thanks anyway (AcademeEditorial (talk) 09:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC))

Based on my career talking to academics, publishers, and specialist librarians in all fields of knowledge, such chapters are in general not the equivalent, even in the humanities-- except in a few very specialized fields, or if the chapter is in something really important, and I consequently left one in. But I was exceptionally conservative in removing material--normally we do not even include any journal articles for people in fields where the notability and the academic advancement is primarily by published books, and even in the fields where articles are the most important forms of presentation we normally include only the two or three most cited--and there are some editors here who challenge even that. Taking you at your word, there may be no direct coi, but there is such rampant promotionalism in all areas of the world , including the academics, that even good faith editors tend to write promotional articles as that;s what they've always seen, and unfortunately even in WP. It will be years until we have removed half million or so promotional articles from earlier years when standards were lower, but at least we do not want to add to them.

If you do have time for WP,I urge you to write brief bios of leading people in your subject area. The easiest criterion to meet to show notability is holding a named distinguished professorship. DGG ( talk ) 09:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you DGG for your response. I began now a User-Page and will see how things progress. The summer is easier than later in the year in terms of having some time to making contributions to WP. I prefer to improve existing articles than start from scratch since I am new to the WP technicalities. However, given the tags under my userpage, I will steer away from the article being discussed and leave its handling to experienced editors (AcademeEditorial (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC))

Speedy deletion declined: Colette Mazzucelli

Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Colette Mazzucelli, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare , you are aware that almost all of these two articles were written by one or more now-banned undeclared paid editors and their multiple socks? DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) As Colette Mazzucelli's article has been around since 2005, edited incrementally over the years, perhaps it should be reverted to the version of 22 March 2016 before the banned editor's major contributions, and their contributions hidden? PamD 07:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)On the other hand, perhaps the edit history of Oren Alexander suggests that perhaps there's another sockpuppet/paid editor to add to the list (it was created by an editor who has made no other edits before or since)? PamD 07:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

If that's the case, they should be tagged with G5. But when I reviewed them, I disagreed that they were so promotional as to be unsalvageable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) How would that work, GorillaWarfare? Criterion G5 is absolutely specific that "To qualify, the edit or article must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked". We're just shooting ourselves in the foot here. We know that undeclared paid editing sockpuppet rings exist and that they need to be stopped, yet we can't organise ourselves enough to have any procedure for dealing with them. What's the way forward? Because I think it's time to look for one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

And G11 is absolutely specific that it applies to pages that are "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION". Perhaps you should start a discussion to amend the CSD criteria, if you think articles like these should qualify? Otherwise take them to AfD. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I agree with GorillaWarfare: I always thought that G11 was about the article's content, not who created it. {{db-g11}} does say in its current form. Adam9007 (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, actually so do I – G11 does indeed say those things. But I don't see how G5 could be any more likely to be accepted. Do you? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think Doc James has discussed in the past (at some page I lurk at) trying to clarify G5. Currently it is very narrowly construed. For now, I think the best option is simply to keep pointing out in AfDs that WP:N has two components, and that promotion is a valid reason to delete something per WP:NOT, WP:DEL4, and per WP:DEL14. As someone who is a regular at the NPP conversations, I do think the Sheryl Nields AfD, and the controversy around Marcomgirl in general did a lot to raise the awareness of the issue of promotional editing even within a group that isn't keen on promotionalism to begin with. I continue to think the best way forward at this point is through the AfD process: it is sometimes flawed, but it is a way we can achieve a practical consensus over hundreds of cases rather than a drawn out RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: No, I suggested it just based off of what DGG said above. I didn't look at the editors involved. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

just reminding people that "once an article is nominated for CSD, it can be deleted under any applicable criterion" DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

OK. We're still just floundering round in circles here without a proper criterion or policy for dealing with TOU violations. Doc James has reverted to an earlier version of this particular page, as PamD suggested above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment So the question how do we interpret "while the user was actually banned or blocked" in the G% criteria? As I have said previously in this case User:Susana Hodge is not the master it is just the oldest account we have found to date. Just look at their first edit. They will have prior blocked accounts and just because we only get CU data for the last 3 months does not mean they do not exist. We can come to obvious conclusion and for these types of cases I occasionally do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The way forward is to hold to the principles, not to the often contradictory guidelines that have developed around them. To start with, WP is an encyclopedia in contrast to a medium for advocacy. The two are incompatible. The best practical approach to this is what I've been saying explicitly at AfDs, and what I've actually been doing for the last ten years: either immediately rewrite the article or delete it. Anyone who argues that an article can be fixed, needs to prove it by fixing it, not just by hoping somebody will eventually.

G11 is necessarily somewhat subjective, and two experienced people (such as GW and myself) can still differ in whether an article falls under it. That's why no admins delete G11 single-handed. I make 5% errors, let's say for argument's sake even 10% on the more difficult cases; let's say another more conservative admin makes 2%. Having both of us do it, gives 0.2%, 1 in 500 , which is an error rate as good as we can hope for.

But since it is to some extent subjective, we have to take into account everything that affects how we look on it, and that does include the purpose of writing, which can often be implied by who it is who has worked on it. I think it is a reasonable assumption that articles by paid editors will almost always be promotional , because that's what people pay for. (Not 100% of the time, so some will need a discussion.) I also think it a reasonable assumption that people caught socking will have been socking earlier, and likely to have been banned for it, even if we haven't spotted it. More generally, I think that the terms of use means that articles by undeclared paid editors have no justification for being in WP. In removing them, we should use all applicable processes (fairly and properly and transparently and with checks from those who disagree, as always; we can interpret, we shouldn't distort). DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Debórah Dwork

I thought I would put in a little time reverting vandalism this evening and found a rewrite you did. I use 'Hatnote', an audio representation of content changes and it flagged this big change of yours. You are well-respected (by me anyway) and I couldn't tell from the edit summary what the problem was in the first place. Reply or not.

Best Regards,

  Bfpage  _{let's talk...}  01:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Bfpage, the article was nominated for deletion as promotional and non-notable by another editor. She is an academic, and academic biographies are my main area of interest. I immediately recognized that she was very clearly notable by the relevant guideline WP:PROF, but the article was indeed very promotional. I therefore rewrote it removing the promotionalism and summarizing the detail, as I explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debórah Dwork. You can tell from the previous version in the history what the problem was.

Hatnote [13] seems--and sounds-- interesting. Since the term is used in WP in a different sense, perhaps you could describe it for a page like WP:Hatnote (program) or even an article about it. and possibly mention it at meta:Help:Recent changes DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Clarification on page deletion

Hello Mr. Goodman,

I would like to clarify the deletion of the page 'Nikhil Joshi' which you removed on July 15. Please tell me what errors I had made so that I can correct them and have the page accepted.

The codes which you cited are:

A7: No indication of importance

Dr. Joshi owns and runs a $60 million dollar company that is one of the fastest growing and largest tea companies in India and he is also the founder of an non-profit that promotes sustainability research and works with academics across the globe.

G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion

We had no intent to advertise or promote on the page, and don't believe our content indicated otherwise.

Please let me know what I can do to have the page up and running again. I appreciate your help.

Thanks, --114.143.28.68 (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the article in question and agree it is poorly referenced, contains outing (mentions the persons wife without proper reference), and is promotional. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the identifying the issues with the content. May I get access to the content and the page in order to make the appropriate changes so that it can be accepted? Thanks. --114.143.28.68 (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Curious CSD behavior

I've noticed some peculiar CSDs you've been placing on pages recently. Namely, here and here. I'm not saying their notable, but they seem to be far from speedy deletion. In the last example, the subject is mentioned a couple times in a reliable source. Granted, you obviously have a lot more experience than I, so perhaps it's my misunderstanding of CSD criteria. But, it seems I'm not the only one puzzled, as per the other comments on your talk, and you recently had a month with more declines than deletions. Anywho, any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 01:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Drewmutt, AFAICS both the cited articles are spam (probably not obvious to someone who does not have a related background) and I would have tagged them as such, or deleted them if I had seen the CSD tags. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain how the first one (that you've since deleted) was spam? It would probably be deleted at AfD as non-notable, sure, but there's nothing in it even near G11 level. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

what other purpose do you think an elaborate article by a spa on a soon-to-be-released game can possibly serve? Especially one containing "the developers have stated that their goal is to create “games that focus on characters and have elements of storytelling, but also feature strong competitive and cooperative aspects” and that they felt “really compelled to go in a new direction… creating games that bring out people’s skill and creativity and allowing them to show it to the world” I read articles all the way to the end before I nominate them. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

There are a couple of promotional sentences in there, but by and large it contains the same type of information we expect in video game articles (info about the development team, plot summary of the game, etc.) It needs the promotional sentences removed and to be examined for notability; G11 is absolutely wrong here regardless of what intention you think the author had. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

as for Prime Campus, " property management application that automates the time consuming process of communication and coordination between tenants, property managers, and external suppliers, consultants, and tradespeople...The first contract Prime Campus was awarded, was with the University of Otago Language Centre and Foundation Year... renowned for its residential campus environment... [Its] Willowbank Quarter Limited offers high quality accommodation for professionals or students seeking one-bedroom apartments or purpose-built student flats containing three, four or five bedrooms." pure advertisement. See also the section "Business model" DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me so shortly. To be clear, you tagged that article as A7, not G11. But lets say it was G11, is there a portion of this policy I'm not understanding correctly? G11: This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. It seems pretty cut and dry to me, I feel you're cherry picking a couple of the worst offenders, and not looking at the page as a whole. Even your examples, I don't feel qualify as unambiguous advertising, although I'm willing to be wrong on that. But let's say you meant it to be A7, it's flatly wrong, and objectively so. It's okay to mess up, heck I do it all the time, but I accept it and learn from it. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

the afd seemedto agree with me here. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Mental Daily

Hello. As you are the person who deleted Mental Daily and who initiated Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Mental Daily, I am sure you will be interested in Draft:Mental Daily (website). Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

AfC / Draft article copied into mainspace

Hallo David, Could you have a look at Joyce Stevens and Draft:Joyce Stevens? She seems clearly notable (Member of Order of Australia, subject of several articles and obits), and a lot of changes have been made since the draft was last rejected as "appears to read more like an advertisement " and as lacking sources.

The mainspace article appeared fully-formed today with edit summary "(Created new page entry for Joyce Stevens based on a draft made by another editor.) " That obviously isn't right - copying within Wikipedia without real acknowledgement to the editor who's done all the work. But I'm not sure what the protocol is when the copying is also bypassing the (horrible) AfC process. I hope you can do something to help! Thanks. (Incidentally, if the Submission Declined message of 28 June is from a template then the template needs to be fixed as it doesn't seem to make sense: "...should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed."??? If the subject being discussed is anything other than a fictional character, who's "the creator of the subject..."?) PamD 15:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

anyone can move a draft . Sometimes a move without using the AfCH process is necessary--I do it when the AfCH macro doesn't work, which for me is about half the time. But this was done by copypaste, which is almost never necessary, and we normally try to fix copypaste moves by redoing them properly. I will take care of that. For copying within WP we normally just correct the attribution; in this instance, doing the move properly will take care of that. She is clearly notable. The article does have a promotional done, but it seems to be based upon the tone of the tributes to her after her death, and seems fixable. I've revised the draft & moved it to mainspace.

the wording is the wording of the template. It obviously needs some adjustment. The AfC templates are in general terrible, but my efforts to try to get the fixed within the Afc process over the last few years have consistently failed--there has always been some excuse for not doing them. I will make another try at it. The real solution is to redo the entire AfC and NPP process, as Kudpung has been trying to do for several years. The problem is that it seems to require assistance from the WMF programmers, who have their own ideas about how we should do things. Some of the people involved have sometimes not been very willing to actually cooperate. At one point I was thinking of listing the AfC pages at MfD. In the past, before the RfC system was fully developed, that method was sometimes used effectively.

But for any system, we depend on the quality of the participants, & the quality of one of of the reviewers of this article is known to be a problem. I'm trying to deal with it without banning him from afc altogether.

and thanks for your further fix-up. As is obvious, I was trying to get this quickly to avoid confusion, but i see from the eds talk p. I wasn't quite quick enough. I left a comment there that I hope will be encouraging. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - but you left your comment on my talk page accidentally, not her's! PamD 22:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

PamD, although it can't happen fast enough for me, I think we've achieved a lot (by Wikipedia standards) since I started the ball rolling in Esino a year ago. I am convinced that merging AfC and NPP is the way to go because with a few tweaks the Page Curation system software can easily do both tasks. This would be a 'soft' deprecation of AfC because the Drafts would appear as such in the feed and the AfC team would simply migrate to using a the NPP GUI. There are half a dozen other advantages that I won't go into here, although I have had to temporarily full protect the AfC user list again.

Due to the pressure I and now other editors have exerted recently, the WMF has now done volte-face on some of its ideology based arguments, now accepting a more pragmatic approach instead, which leads me to assume that when we ask for Curation to combine the relatively simple elements of the AfC helper script, the devs will probably do it. The only real resistance is from the AfC users who have no better argument than simply wanting to keep their independence. Once we have the results of the upcoming ACtrial, we'll know more because it directly affects both systems of new article quality control. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I haven't been involved in AfC for ages now (aside from just bouncing stuff in their direction when a creator gets upset that their company / band / friend / autobiography was deleted) - are there really individual fiefdoms? I've never been comfortable with the whole idea of AfC as a project in the first place, it's a process that complements NPP as one whole workflow for new topics (or if it doesn't, it should). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Changes to a page if related to it?

The other question I had was about the guidelines for making changes to Wikipedia changes if we directly work with or for the organization, etc. What is the process for updating such pages to avoid conflicts? I have searched for these guidelines, but have somehow missed finding them in a simple form. Thanks! FULBERT (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:DCOI, if it is just as a member, you do not have to provide details or say you are a member, just to say you have COI. DGG ( talk ) 15:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

DGG Once again, so simple once you know where to look! I think I need a table of contents or the like! Many thanks. FULBERT (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of policies and Wikipedia:List of guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Collaboration products newsletter: 2017-07

Latest news from the Wikimedia Collaboration team, about Notifications, Flow and Edit Review Improvements.

The team is currently working on three main goals, which we expect to complete this summer or in September:

1. Graduate New Filters for Edit Review core features out of beta:
   • The core New Filters features slated to become standard parts of Recent Changes are the ones that have been out in beta for a while and fully road-tested by the community.
   • These include the new filtering interface, the machine-learning filter groups “User Intent Predictions” and “Quality Predictions,” the highlighting tools, the ability to save your filter settings for later use, and the new filter groups: “Watchlisted pages,” “Last revision” and "User registration and experience."

1. • We expect to release those features by default in September. A more precise message will be sent to communities. If you have questions about it, you can write a message on Mediawiki.org, in any language.
2. Extend the New Filters to Watchlist: The Watchlists of very active editors can include thousands of pages. To help these busy folks keep up with their work, we’re adding the New Filters UX and tools to Watchlist. The Watchlist and Recent Changes pages are similar, but there is some work involved in adapting the tools to their new setting. That work should be ready some time in late summer or early fall. Stay tuned for an announcement!
3. Continuing work on “Integrated Filters”:
   • While the New Filters for Edit Review beta brought probably 70% of the old-style Recent Changes features into the new user interface, it left some behind—like the Tag and Namespace filters and the controls for the number of days searched and number of results presented. As the name is meant to suggest, “Integrated filters” integrates those old-style tools into the new UI.
   • It also adds some new tools users have asked for, such as:
     • “Live updates” which provides a near real-time automatic refresh of the Recent Changes page.
     • Category filters, which enable users to search by category.
     • User filters, which let you define searches that include or exclude edits by particular users.
   • We will put the community-defined related links that cluster at the top of most Recent Changes pages into a collapsible panel, in order to clarify the Recent Changes page.

We should note that it’s not certain these last two additions will make the cut for inclusion this year. If you want a make the case for either one, we want to hear from you.

Edit Review Improvements [More information • Help pages]

Recent changes

• Some styling adjustments are ongoing on the filters for recent changes. [14]
• RecentChanges with the Beta feature were very slow to load on Wikidata. It is now fixed. [15]
• In the Beta feature, you can try the Live Updates feature. Just add &liveupdate=1 at the end of the URL in Recent Changes page. [16]

Future changes

• ORES review tool will be deployed to Romanian and Albanian Wikipedia soon. These wikis will be able to use predictions filters. To have the predictions filters on your wiki, you need to work on the labeling campaign for your wiki or request it. [17]
• Sometimes the RecentChanges page were reloading before the filters have ended to be loaded. It is going to be fixed. [18]

Notifications [More information • Help pages]

Recent changes

• It is now possible to display the number of unread notifications in the browser title bar, using a gadget. [19]

Collaboration team's newsletter prepared by the Collaboration team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Articles about academics

In section '"Articles" about academics' in Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not you wrote an elaborated treatise on WP:NPROF. IMO it is quite useful. Why don't you put it in an essay? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I will work on it -- it needs some supplementation. DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Touching base

Hi DGG: Just letting you know, despite some disagreements we have in AfD discussions, I never take matters personally, and view AfD discussion simply as what they are, a forum for debate about Wikipedia articles. My stance is typically to be as objective and fair as possible, to ensure the highest standards of accuracy. In part, this is a reason why I provide sources in AfD discussions, rather than simply stating "keep - meets gng" or "delete - fails N", etc. This serves to provide an accurate overview regarding a topic's potential notability, or lack thereof. Ultimately, I base my commentary at AfD upon research and facts, avoiding conjecture and subjective rationales. When I walk away from a debate, and when a discussion is eventually closed, I move on, with no hard feelings whatsoever at any time. I wanted to let you know this because the mode of communicating on Wikipedia via typing can be impersonal, whereby one's intentions are not always easy to express or convey.

After seeing you at AfD for some time now, I understand your stance about some company articles, that some of them are not needed in the encyclopedia. I have no problem with your stance, even though I don't always agree with it, but this is relative to each individual article for me, rather than as a macro-level philosophy. In other words, I assess each topic individually, per the merits of that particular topic relative to notability, whether or not an article is promotional, and if so, to what degree (e.g. fixable or a WP:G11 situation), etc. I am also aware that some news sources are derived from press releases, just so you know. You'd be surprised at how many news articles from my searches that I don't provide in AfD discussions, per obvious PR ties. I find myself continuously skipping over articles from internet searches that are not appropriate to establish notability. Sometimes, one has to go through ten or more Google search pages to find one or two usable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Small differences (or even fairly large differences) in the notability standard do not greatly harm the basic usefulness and values of the encyclopedia. Almost any general position on notability can be justified. Most disputed articles can be reasonably argued in either direction, and the actual question is which articles are worth defending--and which are most in need of removing.

But with respect to promotionalism, any compromise here will tend to destroy not just the usefulness but the basic values of the encyclopedia; if we become a vehicle of promotional content we have no purpose--Google does it better. And there's no reason volunteers would be interested in doing for free what they might get paid for. The essential group of articles that should not be improved or defended are those that are of a basically promotional purpose--especially those likely to have been written by undeclared paid editors. The people who write such articles should if misguided volunteers be educated and if paid, removed from WP. The only possible exception is if an article is so essential that the encyclopedia would be defective without it, and if it would be much easier to rewrite than to start over. Even here I am undecided whether it would be always best to first delete the history and then eventually rewrite.

To the extent your work--however skillful-- is helping such articles remain, you are acting against the principles of WP. Your view undoubtedly differs, but I'm using my priviledge on my own talk p. to close the topic here. We've both plenty of opportunities to say it elsewhere, and neither of us is shy about using them. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. In closing, I'll just say that what is considered promotional is in the eye of the beholder. As an editor and WP:COMPANIES member, I pay close attention to maintaining neutral pov and prose when contributing to company-related articles. I'm definitely not here to promote anything. Regards, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

the actual last post on this thread: you are not editing for promotional purposes, but you are helping the people who are accomplish their goals of getting an article in wp. Even if the article at the end is not promotional, you are helping people editing against the terms of use not get their article deleted. And you are helping companies get an article who would not otherwise be noticed here. I consider such editing a danger to the encyclopedia, and I will try to diminish the effects when I can. DGG ( talk ) 14:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Notability question

Hello. I came across this article, Social Bite. It appears to be a notable non-profit and some of its claim to notability is this has garnered notice from some A-list Hollywood celebrities. However, after I stopped being enamoured for a bit, I noticed the coverage seems to be based on recycled press releases that have made their way into the Scottish newspapers. My own research led me to a group of articles that seem to be recycling the same press release (see this).

So my question is how best to deal with this? Maybe this is not a notable topic, because, in essence, the topic lacks independent coverage. Or maybe it is notable? I am also pinging @SwisterTwister: to hopefully also offer an opinion. Thanks in advance to both of you. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't asked but I will answer briefly anyway. Looks notable IMO, regional (not local) importance with RS coverage. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• Steve Quinn, I'm usually very wary of such enterprises, but in this case the sourcing seems to be decent enough. Press release-based/inspired or not, they've gained coverage in reliable and notable papers, and that is what matters. My 2 cents. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not quite so sure--organizations like this live by publicity. This is a press release, not an NPOV article. But it's a high-quality sensible press release--much more apppropriate than the usual stuff thaat gets written here for organizations of this nature. But consider the same contributor's Draft:Josh Littlejohn -- the 2 articles are part of the same press campaign -- and the bio one is nowhere near as good because it's less focussed, and falls into the common PR style of using a string of very short paragraphs--which is at WP diagnostic of either a press release or an inexperienced good faith contributor naive writer who doesnt yet understand how to write an encyclopedia article. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oh sure it's definitely a publicity campaign. But it appears to have become a notable publicity campaign. The Sun for instance has slightly different coverage of the celebs involved and doesn't use the founders quotes in the press releases at all. So it's not straight up churnalism. I actually based my quick judgement mainly on the names of the sources, and on the award issued by The Guardian; our convention is that if the issuer of the award is notable, then the award probably is too. If I'm reading DGG's tone accurately, then neither of us is fond of the article, but chances are it would survive AfD easily. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

yes, that's what I was trying to say: there are so many worse ones to work on removing. But I will probably nominate the bio on Littljohn for deletion if it reaches mainspace in its current condition. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Not trying to be a jerk, but doesn't an MBE satisfy WP:ANYBIO criterion #1? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

While MBEs are handed out as long-service awards to middle ranking civil servants, No. For other recipients like Olympic medallists, the MBE is a consequence of being notable rather than the cause of their notability. Cabayi (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

in more detail, I think we always recognize the rank of CBE (Commander) -- and higher-- as notable; there are according to Order of the British Empire only 6980 Commandeers. The next lower, the OBE (Officer) has 858 appointments each year; the MBE (Member) 1484 peer year. MBE , at the bottom, we include in the article, but it doesn't contribute much to notability; OBE contributes to notability but doesn't amount to presumptive notability. DGG ( talk ) 09:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

anova

Hello DGG, I contested the deletion in the talk page of Anova_Culinary. I'm the original creator of the article so I guess I shouldn't remove the notice even when the article was created from another account. Kellyhei (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Kellhei, that's OK, the article is perhaps worth discussing. I think the firm is probably notable, though perhaps the actual notability is more in the brand than the company. But how can an article that is more than half composed of a list of products with a paragraph each on their features, containing such phrases as "consumer-friendly price point" ,"edge-to-edge results" , "notifies users when their food is warm" , "synchronize the entire meal" "can be submerged in up to one liter of water" , "minimal water bath-fill of 2.44-inches", quality form of feedback", " makes it easy to cook with Anova", "New time and temperature guides are added regularly to thousands of recipes" , "tested timing and temperature charts, step-by-step photographs, and instructions. " and PR wording like "help bolster the popularity of sous vide in America.", "an Anova representative reached out to David to put him in touch with the Anova software team" not be considered as an advertisement?

It's a fairly effective advertisement as that--quite straightforward. But you must either remove all thee pr & advertising, and remove refs to some of the more promotional articles, or I or someone will list it for deletion by our usual process, and I think it will be deleted. I know you're a hobbyist, not a company rep, but such is the pervasiveness of promotional writing in our society, that other people tend to write similarly. I will look again in 2 or 3 days. DGG ( talk ) 14:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I have done rephrasing of the mentioned sentences, deletion of some, even though I have comments on some of them.

"edge-to-edge results" means that it's maintaining the same shape after cooking as opposed to normal way of cooking through temperature control.

"notifies users when their food is warm", I think you mean "notifies users when their food is ready, and keeps it warm until they're ready to eat"? That's a fact. I don't know how we should update this.

"synchronize the entire meal" replaced by "synchronize meals" and that's a feature in the product.

I have done what I see is right. If you have other opinions, or perspective, please go ahead and update to what you see is right. We can discuss it there in the talk page if necessary. I can't get it perfect alone and that should be your priority instead of leaving me alone with the updates or it gets deleted. Have a good day! Kellyhei (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review

Also pinging @Guy Macon and MastCell: and obviously DGG- Do you think that this is a reliable source that can be effectively used to assert that Phys.org practices credible science journalism in the lead of Phys.org esp. when several other WP:RS point to the contrary? Cheers!If anybody wants to read about the entire issue, please arrive at WP:DRN#Talk:Phys.org#Edits today.But chances of tl;dr are huge Winged Blades ^Godric 10:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I am reluctant to comment on an ongoing DRN case while it is running. If this is still an issue after the DRN case closes, please post a question on the reliable sources noticeboard. I watch that board and will be glad to comment when I see the question. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Guy Macon--I know that no other boards shall take cases concurrently with DRN and vice-versa.But a moderator shall have the power to skew certain rules esp. if it helps to mitigate the dispute.It's something like when I asked about a source to Kudpung as a neutral party in the IACA DRN thread and his excellent conclusions were happily accepted by both the warring parties.Some sort of an experienced 3O in midst of a DRN can sincerely help the cause--reshaping the opinions of both the parties.(It's a fact though that either of the parties can choose to not accept your version--resulting in the very stalemate that we are currently in! That will lead to shutting the case.... But, I wish to give this a try!)Still, if you feel uncomfortable, you are free to not respond.Winged Blades ^Godric 10:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Greetings in Montreal

Hi DGG, thanks for coming to chat after the Undisclosed Paid Editing meetup yesterday. The person who had been sitting next to me was, I think, User:Rachel Helps (BYU). We didn't have our badges on so I didn't realize it was you. I've always admired your perspectives and I hope to see you again at the conference. Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 13:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

by that time of day, many of us didn't. I'll me here all the way to the end--and if you don't see me otherwise, look for me at lunch. Today I'm also clear the end of the afternoon. DGG ( talk ) 14:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I was there but I left early. I have circular glasses if that helps. It was an interesting discussion! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorting by size of edit - not exactly, but maybe close enough?

In one of our many hallway discussions, you mentioned the desire to see edits sorted by size of edits. While you have copied the edit history into a spreadsheet to do this sort, that's pretty cumbersome. I wondered if the revision history statistics were sortable and it turns out they are. This isn't exactly what you wanted because it gives you the total added bytes by user as opposed to by individual edit but it might be close enough for you purposes.

Example: https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-articleinfo/?article=Eugene_Gu&project=en.wikipedia.org

The link doesn't seem to save the sorting but if you go down to the top editor section you can sort on "added (bytes)"--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's a start. Thanks for the help. (Soritng in an external spreadsheet is for anythign substantial avery cumbersome solution, it is a backup for missing features in many places, on and off WP.) DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Request for a quick check on notability

Thanks very much for reviewing one of my first page creations yesterday (Terence Cave, which I simply translated from a German article). As well as modifying some existing pages I've also added a couple of additional new pages, and a Wikipedia user pointed out that one of them, a full professor in London, J. P. E. Harper-Scott, might not count as notable because there were no secondary sources. I'm still very new to being an editor, and learning fast, so I added a few sources and was told the sources looked good but that they still might not qualify as indicating notability. I guess it's a judgement thing. I'm keen to get started in the right spirit, so I wondered whether you might be able to look at/review the page to see if it looks like the right sort of thing to you, since you clearly have a lot of experience here. If not, I'll stick to translating existing pages for now. Thanks for your time. Constituent12 (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no question that Harper-Scott is notable. Our policy on academics is quite cleat at WP:PROf, and it is altogether separate from the WP:GNG. Secondary sources to show notability are not necessary in the sense they are in the GNG: any of the accomplishments mehntioned in WP:PROF is sufficient proof-- not just indication, not just presumption, not just evidence, but proof. In this case the two key factorsaretheeditorship and his being an authority in his field. That last point is sometimes debatable, but for people whose main academic work is books, books y major academci publishers are sufficient.

But I have some questions: 1: what is the exact publication data for his books--in the usual academci format--reference it by their worldcat entries. 2.what are the exact references for Begbie (2012): p. 202, ^ Beard and Gloag (2016): 211, ^ Kramer (2016): p. 3, ^ Hicks (2014): p. 41? If you wrote the in this form, they were probably copied from somewhere, and the wording of the paragraph on his work they cite indicates that it too may have been taken from another source. If that's the case, the paragraph must be rewritten. 3. The article needs the facts of his professional and personal life: birthdate and place, schooling and successive degrees (with place and date), successive academic jobs (with place and dates)

There are a few people here who insist on denying the consensus on academics, but it is avery firm consensus, holding for at least ten years now. Don't let them bother you--if any actually list an article for deletion, let me know,and I will try to deal with it--as I have with tens of thousands of other such articles (which does include, of course, getting removed the 10% of the ones submitted that are in fact not notable) DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this explanation, and for your support. It's useful to have that list of notability criteria for academics, for future page creations. I've tried to answer your questions in a revision of the page. I've now given full bibliographic information for his books, and done the same for the references I cited to satisfy the original request for notability. I've also rewritten that paragraph so that there's less quoted text, and more of a plain description of what the cited texts say. Just a couple of quotations are left, but all four citations remain. The only place I could find the personal and professional details you suggested was on his own webpage, but there are no dates I can find. Is that acceptable as a source for such things or should I delete it?

If this page now looks OK, I can move on to doing others, and will understand much better as a result of your feedback what to do with them!Constituent12 (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

There's always a date and for a PhD thesis for any recent PhD--they are entered in WorldCat. I added it . The only thing needed now is the page numbers for the discussions of his work in the secondary references. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I've added the page ranges for those secondary sources in the bibliography, and the specific pages with the quotations are in the individual references. Thanks again! Constituent12 (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thank you for looking out for people, not the software.

Bearian (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Seconded; we need more leaders like you who prioritize community, healthy and functional process, and integrity. Here's a basket of bedding for your new goat. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

== A Little Help from my Friends @WikimediaNYC ==

Hey User:DGG, Thanks for continuing to offer your help as a senior contributor to WP. I have not been diligent about rewriting my significant edit here. Here was the last difference between my edit and the revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St._Vincent_(musician)&diff=prev&oldid=762490952

Any suggestions for tactics in my expository writing style or my persuasive writing in negotiation with admins would be appreciated. sheridanford (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

sheridanford (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

this will need a relatively complicated response. It will take me a day or two. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Articles like this one...

Brain Power Incorporated...are what raise questions for me. The cited medical sources verify the eye diseases etc., and mention the company as one of the available places to purchase the necessary optics. The article is supposed to be about the company, but the sources used to cite the company are . My questions arise because the company does have several patents but there are no sources that focus on the company itself which makes it appear to be a promotion on the surface. The article creator appears to be connected. The article is in the NPP feed which is how I came across it. Your input will be greatly appreciated. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) Also interesting/related is Herbert Wertheim which I see no mention of at the noticeboard archives, but has an unanswered IP user complaint on the talk page... —PaleoNeonate – 02:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Also a talkpage watcher ... did you read WP:PATENTS which states "Noting the existence of patents or patent applications is a common form of puffery for businesses" and aren't usually of any consequence for demonstrating notability (though sometimes raised, in futility, at AfD). ☆ Bri (talk) 03:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Since FIU named a college for Wertheim, he's notable. I'm not sure of the company--AfD would be appropriate. The articles were obviously written with COI, and what the article of Wertheim mainly need is rewriting. I'll do it. It is sometimes interesting to see if anyone shows up to reinsert the material. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Terra Holdings

It seems most people at the AfD wanted this page - so here it is: Terra Holdings. It needs help with referencing. I have two, but not good ones. I am thinking of tagging the page myself even though I created it :>) :>)

I guess someone had to fall on the sword :>) :>)

We might need a discussion touting its notability on the talk page or something like that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I left a very brief note on the talkpage. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Assistance with the Transition Design page you deleted several months ago

Mr. Goodman, I'm a professor and Head of the School of Design at Carnegie Mellon University and a new user on Wikipedia, so please pardon any breaches in protocol. I am writing to ask for advice regarding the Transition Design page you deleted several months ago. I believe you were in correspondence with one of my faculty members who made the original post. I believe one of your primary objections was that Transition Design appeared to be a single PhD strand at a single University. Before we were able to follow your recommendations regarding the post, the page was taken down. We would now like to see it reinstated but have a question. We would like to edit the original page so that the history is not lost, rather than start from scratch with a new page. Is this acceptable? Since the original page was posted, Transition Design has been adopted by several institutions, including RMIT and UNSW in Australia, The University of Trondheim, Norway, EINA University, Barcelona, University of Palermo, Buenos Aires, Schumacher College/Plymouth University, UK, as well as Carnegie Mellon University. We are in discussions currently with Aalto University, Finland and Monterrey Tech University in Mexico. These programs are teaching and/or creating research strands on the topic. There have been 3 Transition Design Symposia: 2015 at CMU; 2016 at Schumacher College/Dartington; 2017 at EINA University, Barcelona. A symposium is planned for 2018 at Schumacher College/Dartington. Outside of CMU, two short courses in Transition Design have been held: 2016, Schumacher College (attended by 30 people from 7 countries) and 2017, The University of the Belearic Islands, Majorca (24 people from 8 countries). Carnegie Mellon University is currently working with the city of Ojai, CA to frame their water shortage as a Transition Design problem. The city is currently fundraising to open a Transition Design office downtown. I was recently contacted by the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta requesting more information on Transition Design. I provide this update to address your concern that Transition Design is a single PhD program at Carnegie Mellon University. I frequently get requests from educators who are interested in integrating it into curricula and research strands and because of the growing global interest we feel that it is important to have a presence on Wikipedia once again. We are happy to follow the earlier suggestions you made and I have recently noticed that another area of design focus, Interaction Design has a "clean" page with no alerts on it, so we can easily use that as a guide. What we are not clear about is how to recreate the page, given that it was previously deleted. Can you please advise? Terry Irwin (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Terry Irwin

As for protocol: I listed it for a deletion discussion in Nov 2016, but it was discussed by whoever was interested (which seemed to be only a few people--more participation would have been desirable, but that's typical of many of our discussions), and another administrator, Sandstein judged the consensus view was to delete, and made the deletion. It would be possible to move the material into draft space, but he is the person to ask. I'd have no objection.

As you appear to realize, there is a difference between the style of academic writing and the style appropriate for WP. The reasons I gave for suggesting deletion were not just that nobody had adopted it, but that the text was a "jargon-filled over-wordy formulation" of what seemed rather common ideas, that one should design to accommodate changes, and that changes from here on in will be pretty drastic. We expect articles on this sort of subject to have jargon but the intensity and repetitiveness of this were exceptional even for the soft social sciences. Further, the text was entirely about the Carnegie program, mentioning names of a large number of people connected with it. It was written in a way not to neutrally describe the program but to advocate for its importance giving references to a large number of well-known figures in related fields with arguably similar ideas, mentioning only their books, without specific page references to show the connection--we call this name-dropping. And there was not a single mention of any specific directly-attributable well-known application.

I've looked for papers and books about the subject--at least those using the phrase . There are only a very few cited papers in Google Scholar using it in the sense applicable here; the most cited paper is "Transition design: A proposal for a new area of design practice, study, and research by T Irwin in Design and Culture, 2015, and it is cited only 16 times, mostly by people in the same group. There does not appear any book listed in WorldCat. I've looked at the relevant web sites for the other programs you have mentioned, and at all of them, there is at most a statement of proposed work, or an announcement of an initial faculty position. We would normally describe a situation like this as "not yet notable".

Interaction Design is indeed a better article. That's because it has been revised by many people over many years. It still needs improvements--everything here does. I'lll try to o some there--and also because its a very well established concept.

You may be a little surprised at this criticism. But I've decades of experience in the academic world, and I've seen this sort of writing all my career--both in style, and in making embryonic programs look substantial. I've done it myself to some extent, but to be frank I would be ashamed of doing it like this, just as I would be of the websites of some of the programs.

We have a general policy about WP:Conflict of Interest: people closely connected with a subject are the worst people to write a WP article about it. It is much too difficult maintaining a truly WP:Neutral point of view for a subject to which one is professionally committed. Some people can manage it, but in our experience it's rather rare. Consequently, we require that such articles be written in Draft space, where they can be checked before being put as an article. Nor in our experience are publicity staff for an organization suitable people--they are basically committed to their client's viewpoint--and tend to be accustomed to including as much puffery as they can manage.

The only truly correct way to have an article on your concept, is to wait until it becomes well-known enough for someone not connected with it to be interested in writing an article. Anything else is basically writing for publicity, not for an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 21:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I hope it's okay to respond here on your talk page, DGG. Terry Irwin you are welcome to contact me on my talk page and set up an informal/over lunch meeting at Pitt or Carnegie Mellon and I will be happy to talk about contributing to Wikipedia. I work with Pitt and Wikipedia to integrate library and archives into Wikipedia and I may be able to help. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Transition Design

It would seem then that Transition Design is ineligible as an entry in Wikipedia. Can you please provide for us the criteria you are using for the number of citations needed from what source in order to qualify. We can find no such criteria. Our papers on Academia have been viewed over 22,000 times, which I realize is different than Google Scholar, but I assure you there is international interest. We have had dozens of people contacting us asking for the page to go back up. I will let them know that it does not meet your criteria. Terry Irwin (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC) Terry Irwin

@Terry Irwin: I can understand your confusion. It sounds like none of your personnel are natives to Wikipedia, hence your ignorance of the subject. All entries in Wikipedia are expected to meet notability criteria. Because I can't see the deleted page I can only assume your focus was parroting the paper you published. If the paper isn't generally notable then there's almost no reason for inclusion. After all, Wikipedia is not a web host. As DGG states, had the paper been cited thousands of times some editors might consider it notable although that's a bit of a stretch, to my mind. Academia.edu is not a qualifier for notability just as the number of mentions on Google is also not a valid metric. I think we could have a conversation about which subjects you touch on that you could write about. Rest assured, no amount of international interest or embarrassment you're encountering is a reason we should have an article about your project. There is a very common misconception of our standards because most new editors look to other articles to guesstimate what is allowed. Sadly, this is a problem because we have far too many editors writing insufficient articles, only a fraction of which we've been able to clean up or delete because our dedicated user base is so small compared to the number of English-speakers online. We also don't want to encourage a race to the bottom. I hope you and your team will engage with our Wikipedians in Pittsburgh along with those online. Wikipedia has a learning curve and those outside our community are really disadvantaged when they seek publicity for what they think is a big deal. The Wiki Education Foundation has also been established specifically to work with college classes editing Wikipedia and they have resources to help guide these efforts. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

followup (X2 and G13)

I just became aware of G13 and am wondering if there is a more effective way to give input to these nuke from orbit proposals than to complain about them after the RfC is closed. Is there some page I should be watching? I am still trying to catch up with the translation and X2 issues I promised to work on so I don't want to invest too much time on this. But. Although nobody has inappropriately deleted anything of mine yet, I do have pages I work on off and on for more than six months. I thinnk it is inappropriate to tell other editors how they "should" be working. You offered once to nominate me as an administrator; this might help a bit with some of the other stuff I'm doing like vandalism rollbacks, but would it get me to these discussions before a decision has already been made? What do you think? Elinruby (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Essay on Userpage

I like your essay, but noticed one point about people not declining based on lack of inline citations. In the last 6 months there have been over 700 such AfC declines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:AfC_submissions_declined_as_needing_footnotes Can we eliminate that as a reason to decline? I believe AfC is far too tough to pass, forcing the new editor with a notable topic to fully develop and format it, when they are a newbie without the skills and maybe not the interest. Legacypac (talk) 05:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

all or almost all of them are BLPs, which really do need them to survive. It is our policy that they must be supplied. I can understand using it as a reason for these, if the only source is a very general one, or if most of the article seems to be unsourced entirely. Many of the ones where it is used wrongly are older ones--the list includes those where it was ever used as a reason to decline, not just the ones where it is latest reason. , Checking a few, most of them should just be given another reason, some should be removed entirely, and a very few accepted to mainspace. or removed entirely. I don't think we should remove the reason, but we should modify the wording to specify it applies to biBLPs only. Has anyone figured out where the text for the template is stored? It used to be hard-coded. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Here, I believe. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Ishall be proposing an umber of changes, some to reduce hostile wording, a few to align with actual policy, and one additional category: nn-spam. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Good. Quite a few pages come through as Blank. I consider them test edits and nominate them for deletion G2. The Blank and Test reasons should reflect the idea they are tests and will be deleted. Shorter and less redundant wording would be great too. Legacypac (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I suppose you mean removing redundant wording? Then we're talking about a complete rewrite almost from scratch. I can do that, but it might be better to fix a few obvious problems first. DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

At least on the ones you are rewording. I'll look into these too. Legacypac (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Haildhar Madrasah

You recently accepted Haildhar Madrasah as an article, and I, as its creator, received an automated notice on my talk page. But I didn't really create it, see the disclaimer I've put on its talk page. I doubt anything can be done about my mistake, so you should probably ignore this message. Maproom (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Maproom, we can HISTMERGE the two pages, provided we know which page it was copied from. Primefac (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

A merge would be good. The only clue I have to what I copied is my edit summary "Created draft, from article proposed for deletion". I think the ProDded article was indeed deleted, but I don't know how to check the deletion log or whatever it's called. I don't think I would have changed its name, so if the deletion log mentions "Haildhar Madrasah", soon after 2016-01-18, that'll be it. Maproom (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hipguide

Hi DGG, been a while. I've been asked by [[20]] which I have a COI with to see if their business page could not be deleted. They have a number of syndication relationships (especially with the FT) that they syndicate articles and content. While they aren't mentioned in the press that often, the publicity of these business relationships is important. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrown762 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The basic problem is that the present article is devoted to showing how important they are, which is advertising, not NPOV encyclopedia writing. It might help to remove the material on the founder. I am aware she has a book coming out, and I presume that this has accentuated the need for publicity. It will also help to remove the useless refs, like nbc, which mentions her in one sentence of a long article. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Didn't realize you were still around good to see a username I recognize still after my self imposed wiki break.

Whispering 22:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Centre for the Mind

This Wikipedia article, Centre for the Mind does not qualify for notability based on news sources - see Google News. Then I noticed on its web page it claims scientific accomplishments and works published in academic journals [21]. There are a number of hits on Google Scholar, but only one with the exact nomenclature [22].

There are some works authored by the center's founder, Professor Allan Snyder. I don't know whether to credit these toward "Centre for the Mind". Then there are these specific journal articles, [23], [24], [25] and [26]. Then there is this page on their website which lists a bunch of journal articles [27].

I have no idea how to gauge this for the notability of this topic. Maybe you and some others who visit this talk page can take a look at this and tell me what you think. It looks they have been publishing since 1997 [28]. Any thoughts would be appreciated. I will leave a similar post over at Academic Journals project. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

the obvious solution is to merge to the article on Snyder. The tone of their web page is such that I do not consider it a reliable source about itself or anything else, even for basic facts, but the publications referred to are ones that he has written or edited. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @DGG: ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Where I run into trouble getting my sea legs

Ernst-Georg Drünkler - clearly controversial but I would think encyclopedic because we do have List of German World War II night fighter aces. Who on earth would want to memorialize this person considering the cause? At the same time, when I login, my biases are left behind, and my thought process is focused on NPOV as an editor of an encyclopedia. Were it not for 30 years experience honing a NPOV, I probably would have moved on and left this bio in the NPP queue (where it's been since 2011) for someone else to deal with, but that's not me so here I am, again looking to you for guidance. A GF editor redirected the article but the redirect was reverted. On the TP, there is a response to the redirect. My question is, as a NPR do I mark it as reviewed? It appears to me that it may have escalated beyond NPP, and now requires admin attention. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

There have been some long discussions about articles like these, and the article talk page reflects it. The article may have remained in the NP queue, but it has been worked on; various people have tried to deal with it before you, and are trying now. There is no reason not to mark it as reviewed--we mark as reviewed wen we have tried to deal with the problems, not waiting until we have been successful.

The general way to look at this is promotionalism. The problem is that we have no enforceable standards for article content; all our processes can enforce is whether or not there will be an article. Thus we have been successful only in removing the fluff and promotionalism in those fields that few here care about--while leaving it in for popular celebrities. We are also susceptible to pressure groups--even one or two really determined people can get their way until the clash head-on with other equally determined opposition. In this case, there is effective opposition, from most of the members of the MILHIS Wikiproject, who are very effective in enforcing their standards.

After trying to cut excessive articles in various fields if I keep getting reverted, I have sometimes taken them to AfD, saying : promotional, and cannot be fixed by normal editing because efforts to remove the promotionalism have consistently been reverted. This argument has sometimes worked. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thx, DGG - very helpful. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

When does "affiliated" morph into "paid"?

Hi DGG. I've received no answer to my query to this user about potential paid editing on behalf of BrandTotal. However, she later stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark marketing, that she is "affiliated" with the company in question. My strong impression from the nature of the edits and her previous usernames is that she is not simply "affiliated" but an employee of the company and may well work in the marketing department. The slick jargon in the article in its original form (especially the "Origins" section) is pure PR-speak. Before I pursue this with her, and as a question in general, if she were indeed an employee holding that position, does it count as "paid editing"? Judging from the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure, it seems a bit of a grey area. The article may well be deleted in which case I won't bother pursuing it, but it would be useful to know for the future. Paging also Doc James. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Voceditenore If one's job at a company is marketing than ones work on WP with respect to that company is paid editing. I will block those in the marketing departments of companies who do not disclose based on the TOU. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow! That's fast service, Doc. Thanks. I'll keep that in mind for future encounters and for this case if the article is kept (unlikely) or moved back into draft space (possible). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I consider that it is also paid editing if it is part of a person's job, or assigned to a person as part of their employment, regardless of what the position is called; but with someone in the marketing dept it will always be assumed to be that person's job. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Bittencourt

I think that this comment of yours on a user page was instead intended for the corresponding talk page. However, I suggest that you skimread the depths of this user talk page before moving it there. -- Hoary (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I think he was trying to make a good faith effort to contribute. Though we of course do not like autobios, they are not prohibited, and his was very close to appropriate; Google Scholar shows him highly notable, both for the papers and the major textbook. The block seems an over-reaction to a new ed. who makes mistakes, and whose initial effort was given an altogether incorrect AFC review. I will just write the article myself based on the official CV etc DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

'not yet done

Question about references

Hi, DGG - with regards to a list of monuments and memorials, I have a few questions:

1. Statues: how does one verify whether or not a statue was created in honor of someone for a single notable event, or for their life's history or for service to their country, etc.? I realize the plaques should provide details of the memoriam but what if there's just a name? Is there a way to look up the dedication and if so, what references would one look up? Example: A statue of Sam Houston in the Statutory Hall in Austin, TX. The memorial honoring his birthplace says noted soldier and statesman, so would it be appropriate to use that memorial in an article titled Monuments and Memorials of the Battle of San Jacinto?
2. Naval ships: when a ship is christened and named in honor of a notable person, is there a reference to look up the reason the ship was named in that person's honor - such as a heroic deed, or a long career, etc.?
3. If a plaque, statue, national park, battleship, street, etc. is named after a notable person, shouldn't that memorial only be included in whatever WP list corresponds to the honor? For example, a memorial was constructed and named in honor of an Admiral who served courageously for 45 years in the US Navy. That memorial would properly be included in List of US Navy Admirals. But what if he also served 4 years in the Foreign Legion and no memorial was created in honor of his service there. Should that same memorial be included in Lists of Monuments and Memorials of the French Foreign Legion?
4. What if there is no plaque or other identifying feature on a statue that defines the honor and gives only the person's name - is there a way to look up why the statue memorialized him?
5. Would it be considered WP:OR to include a statue in a list article for a specific cause without verifying the honor was actually for that cause?
6. Should the statues, ships, memorials, monuments, etc. be cited to a RS to verify that it belongs in the respective list?

Thanks in advance, ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC) to respond

You were right

Your comments regarding paid editing are quite interesting - especially since I am applying for a WMF grant to fund a Wikimedian in Residence at Pitt. On the project grant page, an editor told me that I was asking for funding so that I would be be a 'paid' editor. I am still trying to figure out this point of view. I can see that creating content related to the University may be considered paid editing, but is creating content on user pages, talk pages, template pages, category pages and topics unrelated to the University considered paid editing? Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 18:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC) Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 18:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

it's a special form of paid editing which we usually consider benign,and is exempt from the usual rules unless it's abused. It can be abused--for example, by making references only or predominantly to university sources for material which is not unique there. There is no reason not to declare it as if it were ordinary paid editing, on both the article talk p and on your user p. Doing so has no down side. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for all your work as an admin and an ArbCom member. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 20:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Markdill

David, thank you for your considerate note giving me advice about my post on Tony Parella. I sincerely want to develop something that adheres to Wikipedia standards. I will take what you shared to heart and draft more standard content. I hope you are open to me alerting you when I submit the next version. Thanks again, especially for your understanding! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markdill (talk • contribs) 13:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC) ~~Markdill~~ October 9, 2017

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SHI International Corp (2nd nomination).
Message added 09:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

An interesting ticket:) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC) 02:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Request on 19:32:53, 16 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission...

{...

But let me ask you, why do you "need" an article? The only reason a person would need an article is in order to promote themselves or their activities--and that sort of promotion is not permitted in WP; it s a violation of our basic policy WP:NOTADVERTISING. I see nothing in the existing draft to indicate that the person isa major government official whp would generally be considered appropriate for an article.

I must also alert you that there are people who write articles in what they claim to be a professional manner, but almost all of them do not follow our terms of use because they do not disclose their conflict of interest, and most of them are in reality incapable of writing an acceptable non-promotional article. Either reason alone would be sufficient cause for the articles they submit to be immediately deleted as soon as they can be identified--we delete dozens of such articles every day. If you use such a service you need to determine that actually follow our terms of use. Any service that claims special access or permission or administrator assistance is not following our rules, because no administrator or person with special permissions is permitted to use those facilities for paid work at WP. And as if this were not bad enough, be aware that some services have the despicable practice of accepting payment and writing the article, but will then challenge the article using another name, and ask additional payment for defending it. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

>Facto Post – Issue 5 – 17 October 2017

Editorial: Annotations

Annotation is nothing new. The glossators of medieval Europe annotated between the lines, or in the margins of legal manuscripts of texts going back to Roman times, and created a new discipline. In the form of web annotation, the idea is back, with texts being marked up inline, or with a stand-off system. Where could it lead?

1495 print version of the Digesta of Justinian, with the annotations of the glossator Accursius from the 13th century

ContentMine operates in the field of text and data mining (TDM), where annotation, simply put, can add value to mined text. It now sees annotation as a possible advance in semi-automation, the use of human judgement assisted by bot editing, which now plays a large part in Wikidata tools. While a human judgement call of yes/no, on the addition of a statement to Wikidata, is usually taken as decisive, it need not be. The human assent may be passed into an annotation system, and stored: this idea is standard on Wikisource, for example, where text is considered "validated" only when two different accounts have stated that the proof-reading is correct. A typical application would be to require more than one person to agree that what is said in the reference translates correctly into the formal Wikidata statement. Rejections are also potentially useful to record, for machine learning.

As a contribution to data integrity on Wikidata, annotation has much to offer. Some "hard cases" on importing data are much more difficult than average. There are for example biographical puzzles: whether person A in one context is really identical with person B, of the same name, in another context. In science, clinical medicine require special attention to sourcing (WP:MEDRS), and is challenging in terms of connecting findings with the methodology employed. Currently decisions in areas such as these, on Wikipedia and Wikidata, are often made ad hoc. In particular there may be no audit trail for those who want to check what is decided.

Annotations are subject to a World Wide Web Consortium standard, and behind the terminology constitute a simple JSON data structure. What WikiFactMine proposes to do with them is to implement the MEDRS guideline, as a formal algorithm, on bibliographical and methodological data. The structure will integrate with those inputs the human decisions on the interpretation of scientific papers that underlie claims on Wikidata. What is added to Wikidata will therefore be supported by a transparent and rigorous system that documents decisions.

An example of the possible future scope of annotation, for medical content, is in the first link below. That sort of detailed abstract of a publication can be a target for TDM, adds great value, and could be presented in machine-readable form. You are invited to discuss the detailed proposal on Wikidata, via its talk page.

Links

• Jon Udell, blogpost Annotating to extract findings from scientific papers, 15 December 2015
• TDM and Libraries, Virginia Tech report
• Magnus Manske, The Whelming: Scaling up Wikidata editing
• OCLC and Internet Archive collaborate to expand library access to digital collections, metadata and linking exchange
• GLOW week in November: Wikidata workshops on politician info

Sullivan on Comp draft rejected due to notability

Thanks for the feedback, DGG. I sent an e-mail to someone I know who works at the law firm that produces Sullivan on Comp and asked about the frequency it's cited in appellate decisions. I'll let you know if/when I hear back. I'd like your opinion if the citation frequency is significant enough to warrant resubmitting the article for approval. Thanks again for your help! Angsthead (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hugh Ned Brown article deletion

Dear DGG:

While looking at my stats I noticed that the article I created for Hugh Ned Brown on March 21, 2017 has been deleted by you through the PROD process. For some reason, I did not see any notification, so I wasn’t aware that notability was being questioned. This article is part of a project we are working on at IUPUI University Library to provide a presence in Wikipedia to notable people and organizations. I welcome your opinion as to why you don’t think this person is notable. Also, I would like to ask you if you could restore the page so that I can address the issue. Thanks,

Mlemusrojas (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm writing a reply--will post it tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 09:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

since it was only by PROD, the article can be restored as a matter of course, unless there's some other problem, and I have done that. But since anyone can nominate it for AFD before you have chance to improve it, Ive restored it to Draft space ss Draft:Hugh Ned Brown, which will give you 6 months to do that. When you think you have done enough, you can send it for review, or just move it back yourself, or ask me--and asking me to look at it there is I think the best course.

But my question was basically, for what specifically is he notable-- free lance PR consulting? high school teaching? authorship of the posters for Dow Chemicals I see the text is derived from an appropriately licensed archival description. (I gather the archival text came first, and the impression I have is that the text is much more suited for the archival purpose, emphasising the variety of his interest. Descriptions of that sort are intended to indicate all the possible approaches that someone might want to use the material.

I've said from time to time in discussions here, that being less than notable in several different things does not add up to notability. Many archives nowadays, and a few national biographical encyclopedias, try to provide material on representative average citizens. This is an excellent idea, for the research that can be done in later generations on what we think of as unremarkable ordinary people can be both important and fascinating. I remember many years encouraging the then fledgling Alexander Street Press to pursue its project on Womens Diaries of the Westward Journey--and am very glad to see how valuable and widely used it has become. But I do not think an encyclopedia is the place for this. (At least, I do not think it has been the place--what the future might consider might be very different.)

The best course is to see what you can find actually published about him. Some of it should be in the collection, and should be cited specifically, not indirectly just indirectly through the finding aid. Unpublished material in the collection if digitized and available outside the physical collection can be used as a source, but if it is just described but not reproduced, and you'd have to go there to see it, our practice is that it can't be used as a source, though it can be mentioned.

I also have some more general concerns about all the material prepared through the program. The summaries have a personal author, and this is usually specified, and that needs to be given.

Technically, the summary by a professional archivist is a reliable source according to our rules, but much of the material is in most cases also referenceable from other sources, which presumably the archivist used. They really need to be given also. We want the reader to be able to find the published material as directly as possible.

I'll be glad to discuss the project with you on or offline. But my advice to anyone working with this sort of biographical material or on a new project has always been to start with the most clearly notable people, not everybody. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Now at MFD.[29] DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Opinion on my draft

Dear DGG, I casually read a talk by you on another user's talk page and I liked your approach. On your page I found similar opinions of people who trust your judgement. For that reason, I would love to ask you to check my draft for an artist team named "Nevercrew" that I resubmitted for the third time today Draft:NEVERCREW.

I'm really trying to make a good job with sources and I found many, both on web and printed (as books, magazines...). I could write more about this subject, but I think that I stopped right before risking to go in a personal vision, that with art is easily done. I really hope that you'll be able to check it and tell me what you think. Thank you, Robert twain (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

we have a clear standard for artists who do paintings--they have to have works in permanent collections of major museums, not just exhibited . That obviously does not work well in all forms, including this. A standard that does work for all artists, is major critical publications about them. Again, some forms of art are more likely to have this in conventional places than others. The degree to which we accept non-conventional publications as sufficiently reliable for this is a matter of experience and judgment. It depends on their degree of editorial control, and there are thousands of archived discussions of specifics t WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and at prior AfDs. Unfortunately, there is not necessarily any easy way of finding them.

As specific points: we do not usually consider the Huffington Post reliable for notability, as it has no editorial control. We never use a reference to a WP article as reliable, for we have no editorial control. What you need to do instead is link to it. For printed sources, we need to know the extent of the discussion--you give page numbers for some, but you need them for all. A listing in a guide is not usually considered sufficiently substnatial to show notability. And you really should give a direct sourcefor every individual exhibition--not a an internal link, but as a reference.

My impression is that it has enough sourcing to go into mainspace, but in its current state the result of an AfD is unpredictable. So do what you can with this, and let me know, and I'll look again. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

NewLaw Solicitors and Helen Molyneux

I came across these two very promotional articles that need to be nominated for Afd. If you look at the earlier versions before I took the chainsaw to them, they are obviously paid promotional editing. I'm an IP and cannot complete the Afd nom process, so if you could nom them it would be great.96.127.242.251 (talk) 05:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Moyneux is notable because of the honorary doctorate. I am therfore reluctant to nominate it. I placed a speedy on her firm. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Honorary doctorates for lawyers and business people are often an entreaty to a donation, in my experience. I remember particpating in one degree ceremony and the awardee, a friend of mine, said "they just asked me indirectly for money in the car on the way over here." UNSW also gave out a whopping 16 honorary doctorates that year, which is pretty loose. Harvard only gave out ten. 96.127.242.251 (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

PS, look at the fifth one on this list. Doesn't encourage prestige when that happens.96.127.242.251 (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello. Thank you for your response in Wikipedia:Teahouse. Unfortunately, you did not answer my questions. As such I have removed your response from my query in hopes that someone else may be able to assist me.

Kind regards KaiRAWR (talk) 06:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Length of your talk page

Hi DGG, I watch your talkpage, like many people probably do, and your comments are generally useful, worth reading etc.
Your talk page is way too long, it is approaching a kilobyte and is close to being Wikipedias longest article! (it would be ranked 3rd right now at 953,903 bytes).
This makes it hard to load, impossible to deal with on a mobile device, and generally bugged if using someone was (like me much of the time) using a crappy computer.
You have archives, but I don't really know your system for archiving, could you please please consider keeping it under 150,000 bytes? Dysklyver 14:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

DGG, on the bright side, congratulations on having the 3rd longest article on Wikipedia. Would you mind if I do a WP:DYK on some of the entries... Did you know etc. etc? :>) Steve Quinn (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hallo David, I'd like to support Dysklyver's plea: I often catch up on my watchlist on a rather low-tech phone and simply scrolling down your table of contents to see the gems of discussion is RSI-inducing! I'm sure a lot of people would welcome it if you could adopt some slightly different archiving philosophy. Thanks. PamD 20:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

stil inprocess DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

With your permission I will happily archive everything before 2017. Primefac (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• complaining here actually makes the problem worse :) Legacypac (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

+1. I had the misfortune of trying to open this talk page on my phone (that doesn't have a convenient "End" button which takes you to the bottom). My finger got tired swiping down before I hit the end, and I eventually gave up. Please. Have mercy. --GRuban (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I think I will get to it this week. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Pratt MacDowell Fellowship

Hi David, this is about application of WP:NPROF which is in your wheelhouse. I'm working on the bio of a Northwest filmmaker who was awarded a Pratt MacDowell Fellowship, also called a MacDowell Colony Fellowship. I don't believe this is a postdoc fellowship so it alone would satisfy NPROF. Do you concur? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

not necessarily by itself, though it should always be included in the article. But I may be wrong. It's not the field of WP:PROF I know best.

From its website [30] "Emerging and established artists are encouraged to apply." " 300 artists arrive each year; of these about half are new and half have been to the Colony before. " "Artists may request residencies of up to eight weeks; the average stay is five weeks. "; 'Applicants who are enrolled in undergraduate or graduate degree programs as of the date of application are ineligible for a residency and therefore cannot apply. Doctoral candidates who have finished all coursework may apply." and "More than 7,900 artists have been awarded Fellowships " taken together with " MacDowell Colony Fellows have won 83 Pulitzer Prizes, 800 Guggenheim Fellowships, 101 Rome Prizes, 30 National Book Awards, 26 Tony Awards, 28 MacArthur Fellowships, 9 Grammys, 8 Oscars, and 8 National Medals for the Arts" implies 85% have won none of these. I will add this information to the article.

It's a summer program, not a year-round program; it usually has no monetary stipend. I do not think it's the sort of an honor intended by WP:PROF, b There is a complete list at [31] The most recent year is at [32] . A more exact determination would take an analysis of this. I would be reluctant to trust bald third party statements of its excellence not accompanied by an analysis.

I will look at the specific article. DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the research. I think the person winning an Emmy is good enough for notability, but have been challenged with female BLPs twice before, so am being extra careful. The draft is at User:Bri/Lana Wilson if you want to have a look, or of course you are welcome to add to it. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Manipulating the media

This looks like "churnalism" on steroids [33]. It shows what can be done if ethics are thrown out the window. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't seem as ethically challenged, but this type of behavior does cut out the traditional news organizations [34] ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

PR industry disregard of ethics originated long before contemporary social media, and it was just as pervasive and even more harmful than in previous generations and centuries. What modern media provides is the greater opportunity for ordinary people to counter it, which is one of the reason for the existence of Wikipedia. We need to ensure the opportunity is not lost by our customary indifference to the actual quality of sources.

as a practical warning, it illustrates the utter unreliability of Business Insider and the borderline reliability of TechCrunch. DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

About the speedy deletion of the Franklin Azzi english page

Hello, First of all, sorry for my response time, I haven't been active on WP lately and just found your message. I know the page has been nominated for speedy deletion, as it is presenting a lot of flaws concerning advertising WP policies. However, I truly believe, looking through the recent deletion discussions for other architects, that this page can be improved, rather than deleted. I may have failed, so far, in producing a fully encyclopedic page : yet, this architect gained a significant recognition in the past couple of years, with a lot of international and consequent projects; with his nomination in september to rebuild one of the most famous buildings in Paris, the Tour Montparnasse, I figured this was the rightful moment for him to have a page on the english WP, and not just the french one.

Specially with the guidelines for improvement that you gave me, I would like to try and rewrite it, according to the WP standards and methods. I am quite new on Wikipedia, and specially on the English one: but this risk of deletion could help me learn once and for all the standards of the english WP!

Finally, I have two very small questions about the advice you gave me : - for the books listed, the names of the authors and editors are already included : I referenced them, as well as the ISBN code, the date, etc, through the Reference Tooltips, at the end, just like in the french page, in order to make the list more readable. Should I include them directly in the Publications category? - As for the Prize he obtained, it is indeed a "young architect" prize; but it is, in France, reknown as a very prestigious award, and a way for the Ministry of Culture to "bet" on someone to become a reknown architect in the following years. As he obtained it nearly ten years ago, I figured it was relevant to mention it, underlining that he "used to be" a young architect.

Could I ask you to verify the page once I have entirely rewritten it, and tell me if it still deserves a complete deletion?

Thank you so much for your time and patience, comment by User:Ysevauchez

Ysevauchez. I'm quite impressed by the improvements you have already made.

The main easily fixable problems at the moment are copyediting and formatting. Some of the phrases are not idiomatic English or are specialized terms not easily understood. and the illustrations have to be either aligned in a reasonable way, or grouped as an WP:Image gallery. (The frWP page also needs the illustrations grouped). In addition, any sentence making a judgment must be sourced to a specific reference. The other significant problem which will be more difficult, is that you should try to find a third party reference for every building,rather than rely on his web site only, or the website of the organization involved.

As relatively minor problems, many of the details of referencing are different in the fr and en WP--we normally would add the full publication information to the bibliography. We also usually give books more fully in the bibliography. We also reduce full capitals to ordinary sentence capitalization in the references. And we spell outin fullall titles of periodicals.

Some of this will be easier for me to fix than you, but please give it a first pass. DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Ina Vandebroek

Hi DGG. Thanks for looking at Ina Vandebroek's page! You have made a lot of good edits but have also removed meaning in some cases. For example, you changed "New York Botanical Garden" to "Botanical Gardens" which is not accurate. There are several areas I would like to edit, and I would like to work with you on these changes so that we are on the same page. If you are amenable, I will send you my edits. Let me know what you think.

Thanks! (PS: x-posting on the Ina Vandebroek talk page, too.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emjackson42 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Metropolitan Museum of Art Edit-a-thon (Nov 19) and global online Wikipedia Asian Art Month (Nov 1-30)

Sunday November 19, 10:30 am - 4:00pm: Metropolitan Museum of Art Edit-a-thon

The Wikipedia Asian Month Edit-a-thon @ The Met will be the Metropolitan Museum of Art's second edit-a-thon, hosted on Sunday November 19, 2017 in the Bonnie Sacerdote Classroom, Ruth and Harold D. Uris Center for Education (81st Street entrance) at The Met Fifth Avenue in New York City. Following the first Met edit-a-thon in May 2017, the museum is excited to work with Wikipedia Asian Month for the potential to seed new articles about Asian artworks, artwork types, and art traditions, from any part of Asia. These can be illustrated with thousands of its recently-released images of public domain artworks available for Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons from the museum’s collection spanning 5,000 years of art. The event is an opportunity for Wikimedia communities to engage The Met's diverse Asian collections onsite and remotely. Sunday November 19 Wikipedia Asian Month Edit-a-thon @ The Met (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 10:30 am - 4:00 pm in Bonnie Sacerdote Classroom, Uris Center for Education 81st Street entrance, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1000 Fifth Avenue We also welcome remote participation for the global online Wikipedia Asian Art Month, running November 1-30. Thanks, and hope to see you at the museum, and/or as part of the online Wikipedia Asian Month contest!--Pharos (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Please forward content from deleted page Inbenta

Please forward content from deleted page Inbenta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Carlin (talk • contribs) 11:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Need your eyes

• Bobby Fuller Died for Your Sins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I nominated Bobby Fuller Died for Your Sins for AfD back on Feb 10, 2017 - I can't find any record of it so it was obviously deleted. What I did find is that the article was created again a few months later on April 24th, and I can't see where anything has changed. Wikilinked to that article is the independent singer/songwriter Chuck Prophet who doesn't appear to pass N, either. One of the sources used in his bio (wordpress link) includes him in their "top ten guitarists list without some of the best guitarists in it. We accept that, but what we wanted to do was create a list that didn’t have the same, boring faces on it and instead honour those that often fail to make the usual top tens." Yep, that's what it says. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) No sign of it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 10, which suggestst that perhaps something went wrong with the AfD nomination? PamD 14:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

It looks like Atsme nominated it for speedy not AfD. Confirm g11 deletion with log link above. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

yes, it was speedy deleted as G11 by Jimfbleak on Feb 10, 2017. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

DGG, if I'd stumbled across the current version, I'd have speedied it on sight, but since I was pinged here, I'm happy to go along with whatever you consider appropriate Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

This is so far out of my field that I'm not a suitable person to judge DGG ( talk ) 14:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Sonne der Gerechtigkeit

Sonne der Gerechtigkeit, sun of justice in our time. I had some hopes that you wanted to restore the article history of the other hymn, bringing back the 2005 beginning and the history, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Gertrude Bass Warner
• Draft:Gertrude Bass Warner
• Draft:Steven R Tannenbaum

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Demoralized...

Hi DGG. So you rejected also my Draft about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Catherine_(Juliette_Benzoni) I must say I am speechless. The other moderator said I did not have enough sources and "Catherine (Juliette Benzoni)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference.

Then you copied that again and deleted the issues from above on the draft from August 30 ! Splendid.

I get this message from you why you rejected it: you need to first clarify if you are writing about the particular book, or the series. If about the series, name the article appropriately and discuss as a series, giving the overall plot in one paragraph. After that, about one paragraph per book might be sufficient. It would clarify matters not to call them book 1 [etc] but to use the actual titles.

Did you really read my article? Are you sure? I wrote on the article underneath the title This page is about the Catherine Novels. For the television series, see Catherine (1986 TV series). So I made it clear what it was about.

Let me say this, when I started to correct the Draft, I went to see many other articles about famous authors. I took them as example's - just as I took the French Wikipedia for example when I wrote this article the first time. It was rejected because the other moderator said it did not have enough material and sources! I even agree nowadays with that.

My article is about the seven books concerning CATHERINE by Juliette Benzoni. Each book had another title. I thought it was easier to understand if I wrote book 1, book 2 and so on... This author sold over 300'000 books in the whole wide world. The Catherine series (7 books!) was the authors first Bestseller, not just in France as can be read on the Juliette Benzoni Wikipedia page. I have no idea what to do now. If rejecting this article again and again means to demoralize me, it starts to succeed... but first please be so kind and give me an example how I would have to introduce book by book.. because I am afraid that should I really use only one sentence for each book, the next moderator will tell me it is not enough... Yours friendy Laramie1960 (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

When reviewing AfC, we judge by only one criterion: is it likely to pass AfD. In my opinion, it was not likely to pass in the form submitted. This is based not on my own feelings about what an article on literature should be, but my experience with what happens at AfD, where it is much easier maintaining extensive articles on currently popular game universes than on serious contemporary or classical fiction.

I found your draft confusing, and I think others would have reacted similarly. Rereading yesterdays version, even in view of your explanation, I still think i twas confusing. When an article begins "Catherine: One Love is Enough, first published in France as Il suffit d'un amour,[1] is the first of a series of seven historical romance novels " the expectation is that this book only will be discussed. For a general discussion of the technique, see WP:Summary Style.

But I realize there was a better way to handle this particular article, which is to have avoided actually reviewing it, but instead write a comment suggesting the changes. I sometimes do it, and I should have done it here. I give you my apologies.

The French (and German) Wikipedia accept much longer and more detailed articles of serious subjects than the enWP. Among the reasons is the relative shortage of contributors at enWP who can write high quality long articles.

I've accepted it as is. the earlier review should have specified: details of plot can & should be taken from the work itself -- but anything in the way of opinion requires a citation. What it mainly needs now is a copyedit for sentence fragments and word choice. I fixed a few of them. DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

G5

I'm mystified by these taggings. I thought G5 only applied to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block (i.e. after they were blocked, not before). This article wasn't even started by the user in question, and I would say it has substantial edits by others. Note that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikieditions isn't even closed yet, and from what I can tell, Richardaldinho was blocked for logged-out editing that's unrelated to that SPI. Sro23 (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Sro23, I've deleted the second article you linked to under CSD G5. I also would have deleted the first article under G5 if you had not removed it. There is an emerging consensus that large sock farms/UPE operations where it is clear they are connected and impossible to find an original named master, it is within the discretion of an administrator to delete the article if it is tagged for G5 because we can have moral certainty that the master has been blocked in the past or that the accounts are proxying. This has been reaffirmed in multiple deletion reviews. John McPhee (Ret. Special Forces) also has the complicating factor of being a BLP, which makes me even more confident in that deletion.

David, I did remove the G5 on Waterlogic per Sro23's statement above. It is obvious UPE, but the original account isn't blocked and is stale, so I think it is stretching G5 a bit too far given recent discussion surrounding G14 for UPE. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

If the interpretation you and I and many other admins have been increasingly using for G5 is not as fully accepted as we have been thinking, perhaps we do need to revise the policy behind G5, that any article ever written by anyone shown to an editor blocked for undeclared paid editing must be deleted. The prior interpretation was based on the assumption that banned editors would be blocked for specific misbehavior, and that what they had written before that misbehavior was not necessarily affected. But now we're dealing with cases where the more recently discovered information casts very strong doubt on all previous work. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Very confused right now. As best I can tell, Richardaldinho was blocked (temporarily, not even indefinitely) for vote stacking (via IP, no account) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver Isaacs. The block has nothing to do with the SPI or undisclosed paid editing or whatever. Sro23 (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Sro23, that is a fair point, and I can see how this would be controversial so I've restored the article and PROD'd it because of your concerns. I typically agree with DGG on things such as this, and given the history here of obvious undeclared paid editing over the past few months, and the intersection at that AfD, I think DGG's taggings were within reason.

David, I agree we need clarification here, but I am not hopeful that we can achieve much more in terms of CSD criteria at this time. I think G5 works in the vast majority of these cases, but I get the concerns on this specific one at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:C. Nataraj
• Draft:Lindon W. Barrett Ph.D

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

November 15: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC @ NYU ITP

Wednesday November 15, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC @ NYU ITP

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at NYU ITP Tisch School of the Arts (4th floor) at 721 Broadway in Manhattan. We will include a look at the organization and planning for our chapter, and expanding volunteer roles for both regular Wikipedia editors and new participants. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming edit-a-thons, museum and library projects, education initiatives, and other outreach activities. We welcome the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from all educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. After the main meeting, pizza/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery! Wednesday November 15 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 7:00pm - 9:00 pm at NYU ITP Tisch School of the Arts (4th floor), 721 Broadway (note that we are not at Babycastles this month) We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) ~~~~~ P.S. You are also invited to Wikipedia Asian Month Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art on Sunday November 19!

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Suspicious users/possible socks

It's a little hard to tell... I think these two accounts could be WP:SOCKs but I don't think there's enough evidence to open anything at SPI. Suggestions?

• User:TORaptor - falsely identifies as an administrator on his userpage
• User:SwarmZone - on User:SwarmZone/sandbox, says "OUR TORaptor's Puppet"

--Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

if they declare it, it'san alternative account, not a sock. DGG ( talk ) 07:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Steve Collins (nutritionist)

Alas, 2017-11-10T15:20:45‎ Atlantic306‎ . . (deprod- not an uncontroversial deletion as was approved at AFC). Surprised/not surprised this made it out of AfC. ack, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, you can't win 'em all. Hopefully any negative trends as far as reviewing (or reviewers) goes can be reversed before we start accepting real junk. Primefac (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

We will never get things 100% correct at AfC any more than we do at NPP or AfD. But certainly the error rate at AfC remains higher than elsewhere, and the only way to improve it means following up editors who consistently make wrong decisions there to remind them of the standards. I have actually received negative criticism for checking up on people's accepts and declines, but I think people who concentrate of checking up are necessary at all decision points--and that is in fact the primary reason I gave in asking to be an admin. (One thing that can help is a quick screening of drafts the first day they are entered to remove obvious copyvio and promotionalism before they get any further. I've started doing this for G11, and I see others are also, especially for G12.) DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hear, hear! (The page in question went the way of all good spam.) If there is a tool/method to help me screen drafts the same day as they are entered, I would enjoy using it. And screening is needed to assure quality. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

DGG, to continue on from a thread in another location (and to ping off your "higher error rate" comment) - is your comment based on statistics or just "I see a lot of AFC-accepted pages at AFD"? It seems like everyone except me (who is the one tracking all of these stats) thinks that AFC has this huge error rate in acceptances, and I cannot figure out why. I haven't run the numbers, so I cannot comment on how accurate we are as a group. Primefac (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I haven't tried tp collect figures for many years now, because there is too much ambiguity in what to measure. There are 3 ways to define error-- a/ a decision which is reversed at a later stage, b/ a decision which is hopelessly wrong, and c/ a decision which I think should have been otherwise. I usually mean by error a mix of criteria b & c, thinking of c as violating the consensus, not just disagreeing with what I think the consensus ought to be. There are also Type I and Type II errors--in this context, I think of a type I error as an incorrect rejection of an article, Type II as an incorrect acceptance. Going by impressions, I consider the rate of errors at AfD to be between 5 and 10 % in each direction. At NPP, probably about 10% incorrect acceptance and 5% incorrect rejection, as Speedy is applied very conservatively; At AfC. I think there's about 5 to 10% incorrect acceptance, and about 10 to 20% incorrect declines, as the unfortunate practice has been to decline for trivial reasons. The prevailing type of error there is the opposite of NPP, because NPP besides being conservative, are systematically reviewed by an admin. But no, I do not have numbers.

The real problem is not the error rate, but the disagreement on whether to fix or delete promotional articles. Before paid editing became so conspicuous, always tried to err on the side of fixing, and now I do just the opposite. Bad articles are less of a danger than paid editing, which corrupts the entire process of building an encyclopedia, and trying to decrease it is a greater priority. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daffodils English School, Sanjaynagar

I'm interested in your take on this deletion discussion. You stated when endorsing the 'Keep' at deletion review that "All comments except one were keep". I don't believe that is accurate, since neither Cordless Larry, nor Pburka – nor I for that matter – made comments that could possibly be interpreted as "keep". In any case, I thought that AfD was decided on the strength of the arguments, not the number of votes.

You also claimed that "all the arguments were sufficiently policy based", and yet every single keep vote was a variation on the theme "the school exists therefore it's notable" or "we always have kept secondary schools in the past, so we should keep this one". Are you aware that the February 2017 RfC specifically discredited both of those arguments? In addition, the keep arguments were based on an earlier version of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which is not even a guideline, let alone policy. Even being charitable, WP:NPOSSIBLE is a guideline, not policy. And yet the 'delete' arguments were firmly based on policy: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." and "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources ... Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability." The article was written by a serial adspammer using only the school's own website to create the content. Since then, there has been found nothing more than the entries for the school in a couple of directories and a two brief sentences in The Hindu noting their exam results one year. That is nowhere near enough third-party sourcing to base an article on.

If you feel able to, I'd be interested on how you feel you can refute (i) the strength of argument where policy disagrees with an essay; (ii) the results of an RfC; and (iii) the policy requirements that all articles must be based on reliable, published secondary sources. --RexxS (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

(1)The effectual policies and guideline are the way we agree to interpret them, not what is written. What is written is not system, sand there are many contradictions. Given these, and given also the differences in how people interpret, at any AfD except the most obvious it is possible to construct a decent argument in any direction. I think people generally make a global opinion on whether WP should or should not have the article, and then look for the appropriate arguments.

(2) The RfA, as I said , did not say what you assert it said. It said there was no consensus to change the practice of keeping school articles. It also said there was no consensus that commonoutcomes was a sufficient argument. I do not know of any way to really harmonize these two conclusions, so confusion about them is not just understandable but inevitable.

(3) My view that we should continue the practice of keeping articles on secondary schools articles is an empirical compromise with not keeping primary school articles. It needs no other defense than being a workable way of avoiding spending most of our AfD energy on the the disagreements. The goal is to build an encyclopedia, and sometimes that means not focussing on issues that we cannot settle. The secondary reason is that some degree of consistency is a virtue, and back when I first came here and we did debate every primary and secondary school, the results were not much better than random. You will notice I am not arguing that either primary or secondary schools do or do not meet the standard of GNG--back when I did, the argument was that if we had sufficient access to local sources, we could show notability, but that the effort in obtaining them was not worth it in either case.

(4)It comes down to a choice--either accept the compromise or debate not just every secondary school in the world, but every primary school in the world also.

Further discussion should go elsewhere. But I don't really see the point of it--we are both going to repeat what what we have already said.We are not goign to convince each other, and anyone coming to this question for the first time already has available many full arguments in each direction. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I was interested in what you've said here and also what I found on your userpage about counting !votes in AfD discussions. Taken together you seem to be arguing that (for example) this AfD should have been closed as "keep" because more people !voted keep citing policy arguments than those who !voted delete. Whilst I kind-of see the logic of this position, it doesn't seem to be one shared by the majority of people who close AfD discussions. And I don't know how it would work in practice: surely it is then just a popularity contest. On the other hand, I think this whole idea of "consensus" is problematic. The vast majority of people who edit do not !vote or engage in these debates, so any RfC or AfD is (obviously) going to be a fight between those who turn up. When those parties get into a rut on how to decide between the merits of keep/delete, I can't see how there can ever be consensus. Simply saying that the consensus is that people disagree doesn't seem to adequately address the problem - particularly when closers seem to apply the supposed consensus in different ways. JMWt (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, people can judge consensus in different ways--it is to some extent subjective. But the rule is to go by the consensus of the policy-based arguments, and that is almost always followed, though there is also some subjectivity in judging what is a sufficiently policy-based argument. There is no way in any system to avoid person judgment in decisions, except by strict vote counting , which we do in only special situations--elections for arb com and a few other groups . DGG ( talk ) 13:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

2nd opinion please

Hi DGG. I was wondering if you could look at the article on Roy Moore. I will be the first to admit that this guy is controversial (extremely), and that he kinda scare the... out of me. But this article looks like a thinly disguised political hit piece. Am I off base in seeing a POV COATRACK here? -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I commented there. But normally, I avoid articles on American politics. I dislike the intellectual contortions I have to go through to make them neutral. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. And I sympathize. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion Review

Hello there! I would like to see if I can appeal for this page to be reinstated as I believe I can prove and give the sufficient and amount of sources. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver Isaacs Thank you! FiendYT ★

You can use [[WP:Deletion Review[[, but I would not advise it. There was no other way I could have closed the AfD, given the comments, so the deletion is not likely to be reversed. You've done paid editing, and I assume that this was a paid article, so in any case you must use Draft space. I did not block re-creation, so if you write an article that gets approved at AfC, if it is different enough to pass speedy, it can be considered again--it will almost certainly be nominated for another AfD discussion. It was not not weakness of sources that was the problem, but promotional content, and I am not quite sure a nonpromotional article on this subject could be written. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Amit Goswami

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Noteable Faculty and Biomedical Engineering Page JHU

DGG, I am a little confused. Can I add references to Nitish Thakor page for example, and is it ok for me to update with more references the JHU BME page? I am currently the Director of Biomedical Engineering and wanted to do for BME what Stanford Computer Science has done and Oxford Computer Science, both have wiki pages and are demonstrating very coherent easy ways to have undergrads and high schoolers just find them easily through Wikipedia.

I dont think I have added anything to date that is not accurate. It isn't our business in the Academy to speak about things we don't have published. Anyway I appreciate reading your notes about "Noteable faculty"; that was very helpful. My criteria which was in error was National Academy. I think essentially it is suggesting the Associate Professors and Full Professors will all likely be noteable because all of them in our department have H-indices that are very high and many publications. Thank-you in advance. Mim.cis (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

You do have an obvious conflict of interest; according to common sense you are not the best person to evaluate the appropriateness and balance of the content in the articles about your own organization. According to our rules in WP:COI, you may only make suggestions of the article talkpage, except for fixing obvious errors or updating. Adding the references for the plain facts of Thakor's career is the sort of thing you can do directly; adding references for judgements about him, do on the talk page. ( Be careful about adding content--we give only a brief description of the research and list only the 2 or 3 most cited papers. We regard Research Career Development Awards and the like as grants, not awards, and we do not include them; we also do not include alumni awards from his university. There's no need to pad the CV--Fellow IEEE is sufficient proof of notability.

As for the Department article, I started by restoring some refs to the Department articlefrom earlier versions of the article) Since member National Academy is notable, I found the proper way to add some additional names, even though the articles have not yet been written. However, the history section is still a little heavy with internal detail. It could use some copyediting for compactness. I'll give it a try if I can. You might note the extreme plainness of the other articles you mention.

when you proceed to write articles on the other faculty, do it in Draft Space using the WP:Article Wizard, Make sure you declare your conflict of interest. And I strongly recommend that you do them very cautiously, one at a time, starting from the most notable, and seeing if you run into opposition before you start the nest one.. In judging citations, the key factor is not the h factor by itself-- person A with 50 papers each with 50 citations has h=50; so does person B with 20 papers with 200 citations and 30 with 50, but only person B is likely to be notable. I give you advice to the best of my ability about what is acceptable, but I cannot make final judgments. Anyone who wishes can bring an article deletion request at WP:AFD , and the community consensus makes the decision. Do not be surprised if some people oppose.

I hope this helps. DGG ( talk ) 13:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Timeflip

Please, please, transfer at least my personal article User:DENAMAX:Timeflip DENAMAX (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

It's at Draft:TimeFlip. Click the tab that says View History, and select the first version. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Anna Ziegler (author)
• Draft:Coway Co
• Draft:Fernwood House
• Draft:Linda Lloyd Jones
• Draft:Roadside Farm Stands

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Olga T. Weber AfD

(Talk page stalker) I am curious why you have not withdrawn your Olga T. Weber AfD nomination, considering that you placed it less than two weeks after the previous AfD was closed, and therefore the nomination is in clear violation of policy. Newimpartial (talk) 07:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

DGG is an Admin and an Arbitrator who is pretty familiar with policy. Was there a specific policy being broken? Legacypac (talk) 07:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not often that I would do this--but there is no policy preventing it. WP:RENOM is an essay, and the guidelines it gives are considerably longer thana our actual practice. I see however it may have been strategically not a very good idea. DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I know that you are an admin, DGG, which is why I was taken aback. The relevant policy text from WP:DELAFD is as follows:

Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the consensus is in favor of keeping the page, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome.

I do not see how a period less than two weeks can be considered "a reasonable amount of time" under any interpretation of policy, but especially from a WP:NODEADLINE perspective.Newimpartial (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Sabrina Ho

Hi DDG! I have some concerns regarding your recent speedy deletion of Sabrina Ho. I feel the deletion occurred a bit haphazardly and I'd appreciate the opportunity for a full discussion amongst the page's editors to gain a consensus on your decision. I hope this is not too much to ask. Although certain portions of Sabrina Ho do appear to be an advertisement or promotion, I'd contend many portions are not. There are about 70 reference links to credible news publications directly citing Sabrina Ho and her work. Several of her siblings also have Wikipedia articles including Pansy Ho and Lawrence Ho. Sabrina Ho is as notable as these two individuals. While the article can use improvements, I'm not sure a complete rewrite is required to achieve neutrality. Thank you. MacauWizard1 (talk) 07:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It was , as you say, deleted as entirely promotional. I do not think it can be fixed without complete rewriting, which is the standard. Whether she is notable is a different issue.

You write "discussion among the page's editors". The only significant editor is Angrylala (talk · contribs), who has only worked on this article and those of her family. (It was started by Kelvinlei,who has written nothing else. You have never contributed except for this note to me. What is your connection with the other editors? Have you any connection with her or her family? DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

DGG,

I am a bit confused with your deleting the page Kornelija Slunjski (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). Everything that was stated in the article was supported with coverage of multiple sources and news outlets. I wrote to the admin who originally deleted the content but never got a reply in which they can explain what specific part is considered advertising as nothing had a positive context?

Would you be kind enough to help me adjust the article so it gets published?

Sincerely, --TheGalaxyMan (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)