User talk:DGG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I APOLOGIZE FOR DELAYED RESPONSES, BUT THE AMOUNT, NATURE, AND UNDERLYING CAUSES OF POLICE ACTIVITY IN MY AREA OF BROOKLYN AND ELSEWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES IS MAKING ME TOO ANGRY TO WORK. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

                                       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

General Archives:
2006: Sept-Dec
2007: Jan-Feb , Mar-Apr , May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec 
2008: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2009: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2010: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2011: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2012: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2013: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2014: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2015: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2016: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2017: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2018: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2019: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2020: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
     

Do not add comments here; add new sections at the bottom, not the top

I'm sure I've seen you reference this essay[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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. .. . DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

David you have deleted the page created by me Amrita for Enimm Crews Private Limited. Twice the article created got created. Though company is start-up but it is a private limited company registered under law at India working for good. I have been working in the company. I am surprised that Wikipedia takes into account only those subjects which are already popular or have grown big. Have been using Wikipedia for 12 years as viewer. So I decided to contribute & have been doing for 6 months but this contributor & review process, two times deletion sadly is disheartening & not very encouraging. Amritashar (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

James Omura[edit]

...

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)

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

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, though I iwll not oppose it unelss I can find some othe policy based reason. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


Review some JzG deletions[edit]

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)

...

Touche![edit]

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 )

Indexing[edit]

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? Antu face-angel 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 ready 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
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. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Bryan Caplan[edit]

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 youve 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)


Comment[edit]

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)


Talk page size[edit]

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![edit]

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[edit]

Summary, modified from my comment elsewhere,

The policy on whether we keep an article isn't 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[edit]

(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[edit]

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 them 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 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 its 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 there 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)


A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Cup-o-coffee-simple.svg Thanks for reviewing my article. Yavarai (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


On this day, 10 years ago...[edit]

Wikipedia Administrator.svg 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[edit]

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)

=

Hello, I would be very grateful if you could accept the changes in the Polish artist's profiles Paweł Kowalewski. Thank you for your help! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawe%C5%82_Kowalewski https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawe%C5%82_Kowalewski https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawe%C5%82_Kowalewski

We've got a problem[edit]

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)

Subsequent note: I've pretty much given up on this issue; not that I think I was wrong, but a/ it's a little boring making the same argument repeatedly and b/ there are more serious problems here, like coi/UPE. DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


American Jewish Anti-Bolshevism[edit]

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 [2]. - 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[edit]

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

(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 time.
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 meant 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 is inadequate , 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 background 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 for which I would be capable of doing justice to a complex philosophical or historical article. We do 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, which I think in general quite superior to ours', uses general references in cases where we would insist on specifics (and in many instances 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 "bad" 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 stubs 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)

Userspace drafts[edit]

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 enough for 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 support 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 on 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's views differ, and the consensus is affect by which individuals 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 expansively (more broadly than I really think justified); copyvio also strictly (and again more broadly than I think necessary--we are much less permissive than US Law 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 individuals 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. watching 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![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png 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[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

Cup-o-coffee-simple.svg Thanks for reviewing my article about Sukhdev Rajbhar. Regards Yavarai (talk) 10:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


A quick note on patrolling[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png 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[edit]

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. [3]
    • User filters: We're adding the ability to filter by any username, similar to what's available already on the the User Contributions page. [4]

Edit Review Improvements [More informationHelp pages]

Recent changes

  • It is now possible to save your favorite filters sets by using bookmarks. [5]
  • It is possible to filter only the last edits done on a page on the Recent Changes page. [6]
  • 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.

08:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


Opinion...[edit]

...

My 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 others' 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)


Indian companies[edit]

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.

A barnstar for you![edit]

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

book chapters and notability[edit]

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.

Handling socks[edit]

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 G5 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)


AfC / Draft article copied into mainspace[edit]

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)


Articles about academics[edit]

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[edit]

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)


MBE[edit]

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)


Greetings in Montreal[edit]

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?[edit]

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. (Sorting in an external spreadsheet is for anything substantial a very cumbersome solution, it is a backup for missing features in many places, on and off WP.) DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


A goat for you![edit]

Boer Goat (8742860752).jpg

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

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

Hemp shives.jpg
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)
still to do

Essay on Userpage[edit]

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)
I shall 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)


A kitten for you![edit]

Kitten in a helmet.jpg

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)


When does "affiliated" morph into "paid"?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

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


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

{...

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)


Sonne der Gerechtigkeit[edit]

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)


Steve Collins (nutritionist)[edit]

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 to 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, I 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[edit]

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 effective policies and guidelines are the way we agree to interpret them, not what is written. What is written is not systematic, and 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 RfC, as I explained, 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 simply 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 personal judgment in decisions, except by strict vote counting , which we do in only special situations--elections for arb com, decisions by arb com, for example. DGG ( talk ) 13:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Noteable Faculty and Biomedical Engineering Page JHU[edit]

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 article from 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)


hello[edit]

It appears that most long term administrators do not share the same views that you do on treating new editors contributions with the same respect that you mention on your other personal page.

I was interested if there are other administrators like you? If so, who? Thank you in advance. I appreciate all your time and all you do. How can i give you an award? Moscowamerican (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Appreciation[edit]

I don't think I have adequately conveyed my appreciation for your patient explanations of 'how things work' around here. I have learned so much from you. Thank you and Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)   06:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Your new talk page[edit]

When I drove by your talk page today, it reminded me of Miami after Hurricane Andrew—I didn't recognize the neighborhood.

My Internet situation is such that I've considered length here at this talk page a feature, not a bug. How do you feel about a Best of DDG archive? — User:Neonorange (Phil) 00:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

you will find these in the topical archives sections listed at the top. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Can we turn it into a podcast?Barbara (WVS)   00:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Hear! Hear! — User:Neonorange (Phil) 07:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


AfC decline template[edit]

Hi there, I was mentioning to primefac that I felt the current templates we use for declining submissions could be made more pithy. Seemingly people aren't reading them, or, more likely, ignoring them; and I feel if they were either trimmed up, or made more specific (pointing to SNGs, for example) it may help. Either way, primefac mentioned you also have an interest in this, so I figured I'd reach out to get your thoughts. Thanks in advance. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed, thanks for reminding me. I write write at least a sample in the next week or two. Not reading, because I know that when I receive obvious boilerplate that seems to contain material not directly helpful, I stop reading. Also not understanding, because only someone who actually knows how we judge articles could understand the significance of the advice--and only someone with experience here could understand the pages being referred to. And, to be sure, ignoring -- sometimes they don't care in the least about what we require--but I am not sure any change in wording can help that part. . DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi again, with the holidays behind us I had a quick moment to take a stab at a template rewrite. It's just boilerplate, and I'd like more specific ones so we can point them to respective SNGs, but wanted to get your feedback to see if you feel it's going in the right direction. Thanks in advance. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Read your essay[edit]

You certainly are a good teacher thank you for working on the essay you recommended to me on my talk page. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)   00:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Did you know we actually have rules about this stuff? They apply to you, too![edit]

In regards to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Made to Stick, did you even do WP:BEFORE? I don't think you did. I get the impression that you just spitball decisions on articles to be whatever you think it should be. You might've made some reference to WP:NBOOK in your nomination. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't list it for problems with notability, but promotionalism. I didn't refer to NBOOK because that's not the basis of my nomination. In fact, I think it most likely is notable. If I thought it wasn't I would have said so. I did enough WP:BEFORE to confirm the notability. I am fully aware that I can not discuss the notability of a book without looking at least for library holdings, which are quite high--and having seen that, I assume that there are reviews also.
As you must know by now, I currently care much more about promotionalism than notability. I rarely send to afd any more if notability is the only concern, unless it's really clear. I send promotionalism that doesn't fall under G11. There are enough people dealing with notability , and in any case I consider lack of notability a less critical issue.
I make mistakes. By my estimate, somewhere around 2% of my AfD nominations are errors. (as distinct from those where the consensus disagrees with me) Criticize me when I make the errors--I want to try to reduce my error rate to 1%, and I need the criticism to do that. But not when you just assume I make an error without looking at what I actually said. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok, so this is the crux of the disagreement. Deletion is not cleanup. I would love to just go around deleting articles I don't like. We have a bunch of articles about minor athletes and movies no one saw and the articles remain because the subjects are notable. So it must be nice to ignore WP:N. I don't think you made a case for WP:DEL4 and it's your job as nominator to make that case. So my charge isn't that you made a mistake, but that your beliefs about deletion are wrong, hence my utter contempt for you as an editor. You are one ARBCOM candidate I definitely regret supporting in the past. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Jesus, dude... I think you're getting a bit snippy with your response here... :-/ ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
that's OK; I take comments like this for recognition that I'm getting somewhere. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
'A bit snippy' ? It's downright PA. Boomerang for troutman. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@Kudpung: How is it a personal attack? I have seen AfD noms like what DGG has done considered "bad faith." I'm pointing out that Wikipedia actually has agreed-upon criteria for deletion and DGG seems to think himself above mere community consensus. I agree with Aristotle's adage: He who has never learned to obey cannot be a good commander. Anyone who purports to enforce and define the law has to obey the law. Contempt for guidelines and policies indicates unfitness for leadership, in my opinion. Clearly, I am in the minority in my views, which is sad. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Most actual disagreements involving policy are not about what it is, but how to apply it. Sometimes the consensus is pretty stupid, but each of us has a their own view about what that applies to. NOT ADVOCACY is basic policy, but the dividing line between which promotional articles to fix, and which to remove, is a matter of judgment, with a very wide range of plausible views. I do not have contempt for those who take a different view here than I, tho I certainly continue to oppose them as opportunity offers, and I certainly intend my arguments to affect the general consensus on interpretation. WP would not be much harmed by disagreements on whereto draw the line about notability ; it could be destroyed by being used for advertising.
I don't see what ArbCom has to do with it; it is rarely concerned even indirectly with what articles get kept or deleted; there have been a few arb cases about deletion behavior, but they were before my time on the committee. If, hypothetically, there were a supreme board to decide what articles were kept, then people would appropriately vote for the members based on what they thought about deletion-related questions. Whether I'm an arb adds no weight to my !votes at AfD, and I don't see that it discourages people from disagreeing with them. It would be more relevant to ask my views about what constitutes a personal attack, for that arb com does have jurisdiction over.
If I had deleted the article as G11 single-handed without a second admin's confirmation, you might have at least an excuse for a question about my general judgment. But this is just a nomination for a discussion. As I tell beginners, if your view is considered right by the community, the article will not get deleted. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
"But this is just a nomination for a discussion. As I tell beginners, if your view is considered right by the community, the article will not get deleted." The problem is, this is simply not the case. All it takes is a nomination by a highly influential admin (you), and lack of participation (AfD is already a ghost town and has been for years as the noms pile up beyond anyone's ability to track), or participation from deletionists, non-neutral participants, or people with an axe to grind, for a notable article to be deleted simply because nobody, or insufficient people, bothered to do WP:BEFORE, or bothered to click the search links at the top of every AfD. The proper response to a promotional-sounding article is to (A) edit it, or (B) tag it with {{advert}}, {{cleanup}}, or similar tag. The proper response for an article whose citations appear to demonstrate insufficient WP:N is to do WP:BEFORE. It cannot be over-stressed that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. That's why we have cleanup tags.

All of that said, Christroutman's vicious personal attacks here are way out of line and are in violation of the final warning he received here: [7], so by all rights he should be blocked. Softlavender (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Softlavendar, that is not how I see my experience at afd. My record of success is not particularly high, partly because -- having no real need to have a perfect record as if I were running for an RfA, -- I can try to see where consensus currently lies by sometimes nominating what I suspect to be marginal cases; the way we work, there is no other way to find out except to try and see & then adjust expectations. I'm perfectly willing to withdraw a nomination or suggest an alternative, as I have done with the one that started this thread. I consider AfD misnamed--it should be seen as Articles for Discussion, and with the current variety of closures, that is more and more what it has become.
There are many regulars who have not the least hesitation in telling me that I'm wrong -- I think in fact some of them find it particularly satisfactory to be able to do so. Many beginners do also, and they can be sometimes correct as well. Of course, it is possible that I may be an adult gorilla who does not realize my own weight--I have never been all that good in judging what people think of me. .
Participation at AfD has been even lower in the past. But even as it is, it's the only process here for quality control that actually works. Again, I may be misperceiving this because I am overestimating how well it works because I have long enough experience there to know how to use it.
But here is the real situation: I am now much less concerned with notability than promotionalism. I do intend to use whatever fair methods I can find to put an end to the practice of undeclared paid editing--and if possible, to convince the community to end all paid editing. The most effective method at my disposal is deletion. (SPI also helps, but I'm just not good at it and have to depend for that part on others). Variations in notability do not actually matter very much, but paid editing will destroy WP by reducing us to an advertising medium. Even if by some miracle we could get paid editing of decent quality, it would destroy WP by driving away the volunteers. That includes me--I will not work here if it stops being a volunteer project, any more than I would work here if it were censored, or if it did not have a free license. Those are the things about WP that are actually important to me.
Consequently, I no longer fully agree that "The proper response to a promotional-sounding article is to (A) edit it, or (B) tag it with {{advert}}, {{cleanup}}, or similar tag. " It remains the proper approach for an article from a good faith editor (GFE). For an article in violation of the TOU, the proper course is deletion. We could remove these from AfD--I will support a speedy criterion; I'd even support it also applying to draft space. (I recognize there are some problems here, because sometimes a GFE will not know better than to copy the style of one of the hundred thousands of promotional articles thinking that's what is actually wanted. The solution is to remove the bad examples--all of them, regardless of how long they've been here, just as we dealt with the unsourced BLPs. It will take a few years.) For good volunteer editors to try to fix such articles makes the matter worse: they're facilitating the undeclared paid editors, they're preventing a real solution, they're doing the work so the people who want to destroy our principles can earn the money. That's suicide, not altruism.
Nor do I fully agree with the essay Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. The most effective way --sometimes the only way--to get an article cleaned up over opposition for fans or promotional editors is to list it for deletion. It shouldn't be the first step for an article by a good faith editor, but it works. clumsy as AfD is, the alternative is 3O, which rarely accomplishes anything, or RfC, which can be really messy. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Then, in my opinion, you are, or could be accused of, nominating in bad faith. If you feel or realize that a subject has notability, but are AfDing anyway, then you are nominating in bad faith as many people understand it. Unlike other XfDs, AfD is not "articles for discussion", as you have stated/implied above. It is "Articles for Deletion". By AfDing you are stating or implying that an article on the subject should not exist on Wikipedia. If you are too lazy to edit, and unwilling to tag articles (we also have the {{coi}} and {{undisclosed paid}} tags for the issues you address), but want to remove them entirely based on your subjective opinion of how they are written rather than the notability of the subject and the well-established thresholds of inclusion established by the community, not by a single person .... then you are, in essence, taking "the law" into your own hands. I understand why you are doing it, but it subverts a lot of the established community processes under which the encyclopedia operates. They may be inefficient, but they have been established by community consensus. Softlavender (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Softlavendar: WP:N is clear that simply meeting the GNG is not enough for inclusion. Failure of WP:NOT is grounds for failing WP:N, and that includes WP:PROMO. WP:DEL4 and WP:DEL14 also apply here: a notable subject that is promotional can and should be deleted from Wikipedia under existing policies and guidelines, including the notability guideline itself, even if it does not meet the strict G11 criterion. Your view is certainly a view that many in the community hold, but so is David's. The point of AfD is for the community to decide how to apply the principles of Wikipedia as expressed in our policies and guidelines to the case of a specific article. David is making good faith deletion nominations based on promotion. While the community might not always agree with him, it often does. Consensus is built organically through local discussions such as AfD, and the work David is doing here is important. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
"Essentially advertising" is an incredibly weak rationale for sending something to AfD. If he had said "I can find reliable sources for this, but there is so much promotional content, I think we're better off blowing it up and starting over, and as this isn't my topic of expertise, I'm not comfortable doing it, and I can't see anyone else coming forward" then I might be more understanding. If a brand new admin candidate did this, and somebody noticed, they'd get opposed and possibly their RfA would tank. So why should an existing admin get away with things a new candidate won't? You should agree with WP:NOTCLEANUP, as the deletion policy says "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)C)
Ritchie333, "essentially advertising" is one of the basic reasons to remove an article. Of all the rationales at WP:NOT, NOT ADVOCACY is one of the most important, for it is the very basis of NPOV. (By comparison, NOT INDISCRIMINATE, the basis of Notability guidelines, is much less critical.) Articles that amount to advocacy must be removed, and the mere promise to fix it is just as inadequate as the mere promise to fix copyvio or BLP violation. How we do this fundamentally simple thing is of course complicated, and is adjusted to circumstances by changing the written rules and the interpretations--normally, the written rules lag by a considerable amount. The interpretation is whatever consensus has it--there is no other basis for deciding content in WP. It is reasonable of anyone here to try to influence the interpretation, and I knew from the start that my main purpose here was to do that. In some things I have been successful. I always realized success would come slowly, and I think in terms of years. Sometimes change come surprisingly quickly, and there has been a major change in the last year in the extent to which we reject promotionalism and its usual correlate of paid editing. Having already changed what we do, the rules will follow. My style is to let others write them, once I've gotten the change started.
Softlavender, "Nominating in bad faith" is a remarkable term to use for giving my opinion, and then asking the community to determine just where the present boundaries of consensus lie. I have never nominated without the intent and hope of getting something deleted because of WP:NOT. (or, sometimes, referring something where I think there's something wrong but in a field where I cannot decide to the community) Nominating in bad faith means nominating maliciously or to be a nuisance, or based on prejudice, or relying on spa or sock support, not merely having an opinion others disagree with. It can also include nominating repeatedly and persistently despite knowing that the consensus is firmly against one. I try not to do that, tho sometimes I make an error in moving more quickly than the circumstances turn out to warrant. More often I think I make an error by letting things slide, but both are inevitable in anyone doing a large amount of non-obvious work here.
If we are to trade charges, those who try to fix the work of promotional editors, especially promotional paid editors, could be considered complicit in helping them destroy WP. I don't go around accusing my opponents of doing that deliberately, though I do sometimes remind them that such will be the effect of what I consider their misguided work. Perhaps eventually they'll realize; I've changed myself, as I too did not realize the danger initially, and I hope the continuing revelations of the extent of promotional editing might affect them, as it did me.
one of the prerogatives of one's own talk page is the ability to have the last word in an exchange. There will be dozens of opportunities each day to continue elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

fixing promotionalism[edit]

...:But more generally, you raise an important point:

the problem of whether to remove somewhat promotional material from promotional articles before listing from AfD is a dilemma. I have come across articles that I try to improve, and then after sharply editing content, decide they are unsalvageable, and take them to afd. If I leave them in their improved but still inadequate state it doesn't give a fair impression of the promotional intent and overall promotional writing. If I return the contents, i am deliberately making the article worse than it needs to be. Since the promotional content can also contain material relevant to notability , this makes the dilemma even more difficult. (What I now usually do is leave it in the improved form and give a link to the original in the discussion).
As we know, there is a disagreement of how strictly to interpret NOT ADVERTISING, and on how bad a article has to be before it qualifies for G11 as requiring fundamental rewriting. My position here has changed over the years from considerable tolerance for anything vaguely notable--though I was always a bit hesitant about local interest material-- to an emphasis on removing promotionalism to discourage the usually paid promotional editing.
There is also a disagreement on the notability of these restaurants, and the promotionalism in them is normally from fans, not paid editors--and it is difficult to write about restaurants at all without sounding a little promotional. As far as WP guidelines go, anyone experienced at AfD could equally easily write a keep or a delete rationale for most of them, so it's basically a question of what extent of local detail we think WP should cover. I have sometimes been tempted to add every restaurant in Brooklyn that got a significant write-up in the NYT. If the current trend holds towards keeping such articles, I may do it yet. DGG ( talk ) 19:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I understand your concerns. The problem is think is that sources such as Serious Eats or NYT are national notable sources which gives the subject notability, unfortunately these articles would generally be written in a way that praises the subject. I've noticed (not in this case) that some editors tend to remove sources and when sources such as Serious Eats are removed it could make the subject look vastly less notable, as a result the discussion could be skewed. Valoem talk contrib 16:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Serious Eats, but I am a close reader of the NYT restaurant reviews. They cover, as would be expected, not every restaurant in the city, but those that are significant in some way: established favorites, currently popular or fashionable, new restaurants from well-known cooks or owners. This inevitably produces a bias towards places of some merit, but, everything considered, the reviews are generally critical, and by no means extremely laudatory. (The number and venom of bad reviews has varied over the years with their different critics).

More basically, essentially any article about any company or professional will have a promotional value. it's a maxim that all publicity is good, and having an article in WP has become regarded as a sign of importance. If we are going to cover anything in the current world, or that affects the current world, the articles will have some degree of promotional effect. This gives us a dangerous influence, about which we must take precautions. The efforts of the PR industry can only be countered by true NPOV editing, and it is absurd to expect any professional or organization to actually write or commission a true NPOV article about themselves. Therefore, we need to consider all coi editors as at least potentially destructive of our values, and, the world being as it is, they will be particularly dangerous when money is involved. The attempt at paid editinghas corruptd too many good editors here, and has attracted a remarkable number of incompetents. More and more, I think the only practical way forward is to remove them. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

consensus at AfDs[edit]

Hi DGG! I was reading some of the materials on your user page and it was useful for me to read them. I'. Specially, I would like to know if the materials of "with respect to consensus at AfDs" are induced to your mind by WP's policies and guidelines or it's just a personal interpretation of them? Btw, the paragraph starts with quotation mark but I could not find where it's closed. Regards. --Mhhossein talk 10:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Would you mind shedding light on this query? --Mhhossein talk 12:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

still to reply

An interesting thought experiment[edit]

Hi again, I was chatting with some folks about an idea that will likely never see the light of day, but I'd like your feedback on it. An outright ban of CORP articles in AfC for a 6 mo trial. I was joking about it initially, but the more I thought about it I'm curious what the outcome would be. If I had to guess, no one would notice other than paid editors. I can't think of people searching Google for "Bizco" and having an erosion of trust because Wikipedia doesn't have it. It also has a potential interesting side effect of preventing companies that haven't been around for more that six months, which is kind of an indirect SNG for CORP. Again, no chance of it being implemented, just thought getting your views on it would be insightful. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I had been thinking of something like that for companies formed after 1990 or thereabouts. There are of course other areas, such as their executives, and all the NGOs, and politicians, and the artists--all of who use paid editors almost as much. But it would be an interesting moratorium. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I think this is an excellent idea, makes sense, and there is probably potential for it. Kind of lke an ACTRIAL experiment. Would need some careful thinking out though. @Drewmutt:. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Kudpung for your feedback, glad this seems more feasible than I initially thought. Any suggestions on next steps? Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Interesting idea: on the whole, it might be a net positive. We'd have to flesh out the specifics, obviously. The other thing is whether or not something like this could achieve consensus and how it would be enforced. A simple decline of all corps? a CSD X criteria? There are also conversations going on now at WT:CORP surrounding increasing the notability requirements for corporations that might be relevant here. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The consensus bit seems the biggest obstacle, but I've been trying to rack my brain for any "cost" this would have to WP as a whole, and I can't come up with any. The only debate I could see (which I feel is a weak one) is driving paid editors to more nefarious methods of publishing. If nothing else, people concerned about the AfC backlog should be on board. I'd be fine with it simply being a decline template, something like, "Currently Wikipedia is undergoing a trial where new articles about corporations will not be accepted. Therefore your submission cannot be accepted at this time." Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Possible. OTOH, a new CSD would be unlkely. Getting new CSDs agreed is one of the most challenging aspects of Wikipedia. Everyone knows that I'm a firm proponent of a total ban on PE, Tony mentioned 'baby steps' somewhere not so long ago - this would be one of them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
for the two X criteria used so far, they were so rough and ready that there were many exceptions needed; the same would be the case with this. A new general CSD category is not a good idea; it will be more practical to adjust wording on existing ones. (G5 for example) . Similarly for 1990+, I would do it not as a speedy, but as a modification of the SNG, and say specifically that it over=rides GNG. At some point we would really have to deal with the primary obstacle to increasing notability standards, the GNG/SNG comfusion. But I do not think there will be consensus for it at this point.
What there willl be consensus for, is increasing restrictions on paid editors. Proposed wording changes,
1) on WP:COI, lede para: from "Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it " to "Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are required to disclose it "
2) WP:COI section 1.2, and throughout change all the "should" to must.
3) all new articles on commercial organizations founded after 1990 must go to AfC, and anyone encountering one should move it there. This includes articles by confirmed editors. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support -- I would support; possibly with a caveat "for companies launched after X year" -- anyone wanting create an article on a historic company would be able to do so. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I do not support if it's a ban on entering articles, only if its a requirement to use Draft space / What we need to remember, is that at present we may be in a state of emergency, but the situation is getting better, not worse, because we now do have general awareness of the problem among WPedians.My own preferred place to work remains with individual articles, not wording of policy. Over the years, it's the only way I've had any success. The rewording sometimes comes later, once opinion has been affected by individual articles. Everyone who cares needs to participate in NPP and AfD. DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
    • David, I think you hit the nail on the head here (as usual). In my experience, progress on Wikipedia is only achieved by building local consensus first and establishing something as common practice and standards. What we need to do here is to make people aware of the crisis we are facing with promotional editing, and get the people to care to participate in the two processes that most directly affect it: AfD and NPP. RfCs only work if consensus is preexisting. We have come a long way on this even in the last year, but more progress is needed. That only can occur if people who care take the time to work in these areas. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
If this were taken up, how would it affect new articles about noncommercial corporations or associations? You could use Oregon Psilocybin Society, which I created, as an example. Would it have had to go through AfC? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I won't characterise on Oregon Psilocybin Society right now because I haven't gone through all the sources, but at first blush it seems to have attracted enough attention for notability. However, non-profits are notorious for attempting to promote themselves through Wikipedia, and most of them are written by someone with a COI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking about this over the last couple days, and essentially what I came to is that "if having a Wikipedia article leads to an increase of money exchange, than it should be sent to AfC", which includes donations, so I'd vote, that yes Bri it would go to AfC. Not that it would have a problem getting approved, I just don't want to burden folks with determining if something is for/non-profit. Logically, that expands to BLPs as well, but I feel that CORP is a more pressing issue. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I think that's a very elegant solution to a non-elegant problem. I mildly feel that 1990 is a bit too far back, but I trust your judgement over my own. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Wow. I can't believe what I'm seeing. Surely there must be a policy against using Wikipedia to conduct arbitrary "thought experiments". Especially ones where we just don't know what the possible side effects are. I think we've all gone mad. Huggums537 (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


DGG thank-you for the thoughtful comment about /sandbox[edit]

I will try to incorporate the advice.

Can you give advice on the article on JHUBME. It is posted for being taken down due to conflict of interest. Can it be rescued. It is factual. Overexhuberant new Chairman trying to follow Stanford Computer Science and Oxford Computer Science both top ranked departments. Is it possible for editors like yourself to sharpen it up and remove individuals who are not noteable etc given the history is all documented and BME at JHU is largely considered to have created this modern field of BIomedical discovery. Thank-you in advance. Mim.cis (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I can remove the Prod tag, but I expect it will then be nominated for a discussion at AfD, and the consensus there will decide. There are two considerations: promotionalism, and notability , and either reason is sufficient for deletion. I can help with the promotionalism--at the present time it's not particularly outrageous--more a matter of tone than anything specific, and I've made what I think to be the necessary adjustments. Notability is a more difficulty question. We have no good standards for academic departments. but most submitted articles on them have been deleted, and I've almost always agreed with the decision. It's very difficult to write one without promotionalism unless the department is actually world-famous, and that's my personal standard, and the standard I argue for. It's relatively easy to decide this in the more general and longstanding fields, like for example physics. It's harder in the more specialized and newer ones, ones, like Biomedical Engineering. I cannot predict how the discussion will go.
the problem is to provide third party documentation of your statement "largely considered to have created this modern field" and each individual statement ones in the article, especially the ones already questioned with citation need tags. I point out the USNWR rankings are considered of rather dubious reliability here, certainly not as a measure of research importance. We include them because the public uses them.
Unless you can find material to document the statements, I do not think that the article will pass AfD. If you can, it probably will. If you provide them on the article talk page and let me know here, I will remove the tag. Otherwise there is no real point in trying in keep it. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank-you very much. I looked at several things. First, I appreciate that noteworthy is not an absolute metric.

I wanted to just share some thoughts on possible noteworthy measures indicating that Biomedical Engineering as a discipline is significant and within the field JHU BME is noteworthy. (i) Currently we have 8 faculty over 60, 12 faculty with h-index greater than 50, and 19 over 40. While h-index is not an absolute measure of noteworthiness, Wikipedia says and I am quoting "an outtsanding scientist has an h-index of 40, and a truely unique individual an h-index of 60". For comparison, I looked at Duke, Stanford and GTech in this manner, none have as many. GTech and Stanford have 5 greater than 50.(ii) We have 5 listed members of any of the National Academies. According to Wikipedia "Election into the National Academies is one of the highest honors in the scientific field. (iii) The size of our discipline is significant and of the scale of the departments of Biomedical Engineering are similar to other outstanding program which have wiki pages. For example Georgia Tech, Duke, UCSD and JHU have 40 tenure line faculty in Biomedical Engineering. (iv) A noteworthy measure of the importance of our undergraduate program, the acceptance rate of 7.8% into JHU BME is currently more competitive than CalTech and MIT based on U.S. News and World Report.

If there are other measures that Wikipedia uses of noteworthiness we would be happy to address. We agree that any statements that you feel are inappropriate because of inadequate 3rd party referencing should be taken down. At the time of our founding in 1962 there were no other departments. We are currently looking for 3rd party referencing to that effect. It seems appropriate that the statement "Johns is credited as ..." can be taken down until we find further referencing. We are proper the proper reference from U.S. News concerning continual ranking. Mim.cis (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Notability for the purposes of wikipedia does not correspond to the way the word is used in the Real World--it can only be thought of as a term of art -- language used in a special way by those within a field. I am giving you advice about what will be needed to keep the article, which requires dealing with the artificial manner that is used here. I also have my own opinion, but the advice I give you is based on my experience of what actually happens, not what I think ought to happen.
Officially, the measure Wikipedia uses for determining notability is the WP:GNG, whether there are references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. If you have such material the article will be kept, whether or not it would rationally make sense to have it in the encyclopedia. If you do not, it won't, again whether or not it would rationally make sense to have it in the encyclopedia. The key words to pay attention to are substantial, independent, and reliable. To the extent that it will help influence how people consider the references, the best way of making the case for your deprtment is to focus not on present quality however high it may be, but historical significance, where it may be unique. DGG ( talk ) 10:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank-you for these clarifications. I am slowly learning. I may have clunkily tried to remove the prod based on my understanding of correct procedure. I left comments on Bfpage talk since BFP was the individual who tagged it. I hope the page can stay up and be edited and improved. Thank-you in advance in whatever you decide.Mim.cis (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

G13 Error rate?[edit]

Hello DGG. I saw your comment at WT:CSD regarding error rates on G13 nominations, and I was wondering what kinds of errors you were referring to. Do you mean technical errors in not meeting G13 criteria (e.g. pages that actually have been edited within the last six months)? Or do you mean pages that are potentially worthwhile and ought to be allowed more time to work?--Mojo Hand (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I mean results which are clearly wrong according to our current standards. and that includes- both the printed guidelines and the accepted standards of interpretation. No policy or guideline, however absolute it sounds, provides an automatic answer for all situations. Every administrative action at WP relies upon following consensus--in the case of deleting at speedy, the implied consensus of what other admins would reasonably do. If you examine WP:CSD, you will find each criteria has a qualifying word, such "credible" "unquestionably" "unsalvageable" "good faith" essentially", "implausible" and the like. There is an accepted range of interpretations for all of these, and a variety of accepted exemptions or inclusions in practice that are not specifically written. My % does not however include items that do fall under the accepted interpretation, but where I wish it were otherwise. Nor does it include instances where another admin interpreted it differently than I, but both of us are within the accepted range of interpretation. And it should be noted that for many of these, the accepted practice changes with time in one direction or another. Almost always in WP, the written rules are revised after the practice has changed. Furthermore, specific and general policies can contradict each other--for example, the details at CSD and the general rules at NOT are both policy, but can be harmonized in many different ways--some are within the accepted limits, some are stretching things, some are entirely unreasonable abut attempted nonetheless. Even more broadly, our fundamental WP:IAR could be interpreted to permit anything, but in practice is used also within accepted limits.
You will notice I'm not directly addressing the point you have in mind, G13--this is a case where the standards have apparently been changing. I think it is now accepted that it does not apply to material that would just as it is pass AfC; it might possibly exempt also material that with reasonable improvements would meet AfC, but I wouldn't say that someone was wrong who thought otherwise.
for clarity, I should add: When I give people advice about an article, I try to make certain my advice follows very conservatively the clearly accepted standard--I would consider anything else irresponsible. When I argue for doing something, that's different, and I sometimes do argue for adjusting the interpretation — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talkcontribs) 07:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts. I generally tread lightly with G13s and only deleted the easy and fairly obvious ones. So, I was curious about the thought process of those who look at the harder candidates.--Mojo Hand (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


Inc profiles[edit]

Hi DGG, I'm writing regarding Articles_for_deletion/Lily_Jay. You mentioned that every Inc article may have to be checked in order to remove Inc profiles. I think there's no reason to be worried, as Inc Profiles are meant for companies to have their standalone business profiles like this [8] or [9], similar to Bloomberg company profiles. Having an Inc Verified profile for $30/year does not give them the ability to publish and contribute on the Inc magazine itself.

Taking that into account, I'm trying to understand for myself what exactly made you think that this [10] Inc article was published by an Inc Profile?

Moreover, why do you consider Gold Coast Bulletin and Inc Magazine as unreliable? Do they fall into the category of self-published articles or press releases?

Thank you.  ⚜ LithOldor ⚜  (T) 17:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Bloomberg profiles are not reliable for notability either, just for verifying the basic facts about the company or individual. As for Inc Profiles. , to quote from their web site "we independently confirm that businesses are operational, websites are functional, social media links and phone lines work, content is appropriate and no obvious red flags exist. Inc. Verified Profiles are meant to save purchasers a little time by showcasing businesses that are part of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. They are not an endorsement of products or services, nor a guarantee of quality." If I open a grocery store, once I've got my social media set up, I'd be qualified. They could be used for the above facts, and nothing more--all other content in them is written by the firm or its PR agency.
You are correct that this is not a profile. It would be more accurately classed as a press release. The give-away was the author: "by Wanda Thibodeaux, Copywriter, TakingDictation.com", and the expected line at the bottom: "The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com." DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
I appreciate your contributions regarding my topic ban as well as your thoughts on Arbitration Enforcement. --MONGO 13:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Cute grey kitten.jpg

Thank you for your contributions

CanadiaNinja (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

AfC and stuff[edit]

DGG, despite all the respect I have for you as an editor, I was somewhat surprised (and, to be honest, not too pleased) when at John Cabot University you moved a draft written by an employee over the previous content (some of which I had written). I had thought that we had similar views on the pernicious and destructive influence of corporate advertising on this beautiful project. But that is nothing to my amazement at your move of Galleria d'Arte Maggiore G.A.M. into article space. I couldn't see any way of dealing with that ill-written, ill-referenced promotional screed, almost certainly written by the gallery itself, other than complete removal – so that's what I did. I've written a couple of sentences, with refs, and sent it to AfD (you may have seen, I don't know); presumably you thought it notable, but I could find no evidence that it is. A plea: if a page is so bad that it will take longer to clean up than to write from scratch, please don't move it to mainspace; if you think the topic notable, why not create a stub on it yourself, and save other editors the time and trouble needed to sort out a mess?

I see that you've put a men-at-work sign on Leoncillo. Leonardi is indubitably notable, but that page is more or less unrescuable; there's also the possibility of translational copyvio (NB his wife Maria Zampa is called "Maria Paw" in our page, that's indiscriminate machine-translation from Italian – but from where?). There is plenty on him in the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani alone, quite enough to write a proper page. I'm more than happy to contribute to that if you would like; I'd suggest removing the current content, probably in its entirety. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


John Cabot has continued to dissatisfy me, and you are correct that I need to take another look at it. I have a very long list of things to go back to. Doesn't everyone?
Galleria: of course I'm aware of the promotional nature, and I stopped several times to consider what I should be doing, and hadn't really decided. Nowadays I usually do not rewrite things as promotional as that. Earlier I did, but the sheer amount and nature of the promotionalism has tending to discourage me. (But even in removing promotional articles, I concentrate on those likely to be by paid editors, who are deliberately trying to subvert our principles, and not the more benign direct editing by the subject, which is usually much more transparent and very likely to be a misunderstanding of the way we work, rather than defiance.) I decided to do this one because I judged it to be clearly notable enough to be worth the trouble--and a little interesting in its possibiltiies. See the afd for further comment.
Leoncillo--my principle with these has been to improve it enough to 1/ see that they stay in WP for future improvement 2/ try to clarify the notability 3/ have them read like English, 4/ fix at least some of the broken internal links 5/make sure that references are at least copied over 5/ try to resolve any ambiguities or contradictions --or if necessary remove the obviously defective parts I've done this for the first part, and started the second. If you want to do the rest, please do; I'm somewhat literate in this field, but certainly not an expert,.
People have different approaches to things like this. Mine is that I try to rescue what can be rescued quickly. I'm much faster and copyediting and rewriting than writing from scratch. When I came here, I initially thought what I would do is work on bringing articles in my field(s) to a high quality and writing what was missing, but I very quickly found I enjoyed more trying to rescue the possible and remove the impossible. So I never in 11 years here have actually worked on trying to bring an article to the best I could do with it. Maybe I will someday, but for now I plan to keep going, and I regret the current immediate need to concentrate more on removing promotionalism than rescuing notability--it's relatively rare I can even do as much as I did here.
I'm aware of the possibility of translational copyvio. There surely was some here, and of course its a machine translation as shown by many indications. Therefore I tried to reorganize as well as correcting to avoid too close a paraphrase. And, as I said, other approaches are welcome--and necessary. I don't really think it helpful to deprecate complementary approaches. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


Public library anon editing and account creation versus rangeblocks[edit]

Hi, I have a question about anon editing from public libraries in general and NYPL in particular.

Background: The purpose is for awareness and for workarounds at our Cascadia Wikimedians events where e.g. King County Library System seems to be blocked more often than not. I went to my local branch today and verified it is currently in this state (206.188.32.0/19 rangeblocked, I think) for a system with 700,000 members and ~2 million in its service area.

Just a bit earlier today, I saw a contrib from a NYPL anon and was a bit surprised as I thought they were usually rangeblocked too.

The questions for you: Is NYPL usually or just sometimes blocked? Do rangeblocks pose a problem for you at public events such as editathons? Is the workaround simply to have an account creator at the editathon? ☆ Bri (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: If you didn't know, KCLS and NYPL vie for busiest system in the U.S. [11] We pulled ahead in 2010 or 2011 but are now back at #2. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Bri, could you please check: I do not find it on our lists of blocked sites. The usual block prevents only anonymous editors. If you are blocked again when you edit with your username, please email me a copy of the message you receive.
At NYC we have about 10 or 12 admins (+ 1 crat + 2 arbs), and are able to deal with this sort of thing. Cascadia seems to have very few. (more about that on your user page). Otherwise, there are various methods available, but first I want to see what the situation is. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I emailed the IP block message to you for checking. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


Source notability -- usefulness of non-notable sources[edit]

Hi DGG, Many thanks for your many productive contributions to the Wiki community. I'm a noobie here and am working on my first contribution, Draft:Tennessee Valley Interstellar Workshop (Thanks for the helpful suggestions). I've cited a mix of notable and non-notable sources (more of the latter), since the non-notable citations provide useful information. Does including a large fraction of non-notable citations detract from the article, per Wiki standards? Should I remove the non-notables (almost) completely? I've resubmitted my draft, and it's awaiting review. ~Cheers~ David Fieldsde (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The requirement for sources is not that they are notable, but rather that they are reliable; for material in an article, the rules are at WP:RS, with details discussed at the very large number of discussion in the archives of [[WP::RSN]], the Reliable sources noticeboard. The special conditions for sources that are suitable for showing notability are at WP:N, which can basically be summarized as references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. The interpretation of that general phrase varies with subject, and to some extent tends to reflect general feelings about what our coverage ought to be.

With respect to Draft:Tennessee Valley Interstellar Workshop: We generally have been relatively reluctant to make articles of series of conferences,or organizations that sponsor them, unless there is very firm 3rd party evidence that they are regarded as the most important one in the subject. The sources in the draft are almost entirely publications by the organization itself or very closely related organizations, and therefore not independent. My role in screening AfCs is not to decide on accepting the article, but to try to estimate whether the community will accept it. The place where that decision is made is in an AfD discussion, and it goes by consensus. The way we do things here, nobody can fully predict the result of such discussions, but on the basis of my experience in many thousands of them, the article is unlikely to be accepted in its current form. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC) ←

Thanks for clarifying that the need is for more reliable (independent) sources that show notability. Please continue contributing to the Wiki effort. Best regards. Fieldsde (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Teenage notability[edit]

If my memory serves, is it not customary to not include BLPs for single event notability for children (teens included), including National Spelling Bee winners, National Science Fair winners, National teenage beauty contest winners, and so forth? Atsme📞📧 21:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

List_of_Scripps_National_Spelling_Bee_champions has a few linked bios, but generally not only for the win. Interesting, a search for "Ananya Vinay" turns up a heck of a lot more substantial RS coverage (major news outlets) than "Sophia Dominguez-Heithoff" does (social media accounts, youtube, pageant and fan sites). Legacypac (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
[12] - not sure where this link goes, but it broke the section title so I'll add it here. Atsme📞📧 23:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you that WP should not cover them, but there have recently been at AfD keep decisions for a surprising number of bio of young people who have had some press coverage for accomplishments which would not have made them notable had they been adults. I am therefore somewhat reluctant to bring AfDs for the people listed in the table. We would need a rule similar to that for sports, where only adult competitions indicate notability--but those who believe in the unthinking application of the GNG without considering the subject field would probably oppose that also.
Of the spelling bee champions, the only one who I consider clearly notable as an adult is L. E. Sissman, who became an unquestionably notable writer. Frank Neuhauser as winner of the first bee might be another exception. The other with articles had at most minor roles in the very notable film Akeelah and the Bee about the spelling bee. (Of course others without articles might prove to be notable also.) DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

School AfDs[edit]

What we feared is happening, users are now trawling school articles looking for ones to delete. You can tell these rampant deletionists this: Thank you for patrolling new pages. As a New Page Reviewer, you are expected to know our deletion policies inside out. Please see: WP:ATD-R and please note that this is a policy, not a mere guideline. Thanks. Change the wording if they are not NPR rights holders. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It's also just a suggestion (may have a title that would make a useful redirect, emphasis added). You're obviously welcome to ask users to curtail their "rampant" nominations (if they're doing so) but to require them to abide by a suggestion in a policy is a bit much. Primefac (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
And for what it's worth, the "you" was referring to Kudpung but I have a bad habit of using the royal "you" for general instances anyway. Primefac (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The policy that we should redirect rather than delete if a suitable target is available is one of the most ignored parts of deletion policy, almost as much ignored as the part that says for subjects that might be notable with no significant information, a combination article can be preferable. I'm not really sure that any of the section on alternatives to deletion is actually followed enough to make it an accepted policy. I prefer to use policy vs guideline arguments for only the most basic policies, such as NOT ADVERTISING. DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Primefac:, who's talking about 'requiring'? Just pointing to a policy is not the same as handing out orders. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I often word it as "suggest" . or, "you might also want to consider" in giving advice, especially when it's a question of trying to tell people they should be doing something differently. Even so, it is sometimes seen as a little aggressive. Sometimes it is helpful to simply correct it, and see if they get the idea. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


A barnstar for you[edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
Hello DGG. I give you this barnstar for your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Eagle Airlines destinations [13], which was just awesome and keeps the spirit of Wikipedia alive. Thank you.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


Equinix[edit]

Hi, the notability is clear. But what we currently have is a very promotional article, mainly written by an undeclared paid editor. If that can stand, I'm very unclear how we are not just providing a platform for their paid advertising. KJP1 (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

KJP1, as you know, I very rarely do this sort of revision nowadays, as I feel very strongly about such editing. But it is quite simple here to remove the worst of the promotion, leaving in only the factual material. The company will thus have paid for the work involved in the factual update and the work involved in the promotionalism. But they will discover that they paid for the promotionalism in vain, and the COI editor, could not deliver what he no doubt promised. Since he now knows enough to declare, I think he will know enough not to do this sort of editing again. And if clients wish to pay him to update financial results and facility locations, this is the most innocuous form of paid editing.
I would not have done this had it taken any significant amount of work, or if the firm had not in fact been the market leader in an important field of general interest here. I probably would not have done it had it ben a new article, but not all the prior work was promotional . Normally in such a case it is better to revert back to the last non-promtional version, but in this instance that would have also removed the factual updates. When I do engage in this work, I try to make it as easy for myself as possible.
General principles usually have exceptions. Even my own general principles. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Understood. But this place does get depressing sometimes. What it aimed to be, and what it could be, compared to what it actually often is. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Actually, it's getting better. Ten years ago when I joined, even just 5 years ago, it would have accepted that sort of content. You are of course right that we need to keep working, because it still is far short of the goal. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)v



WTR discussion follow-up[edit]

Dear DGG, we actually had quite a discussion about COI editing at my talk page. What I said was that when you follow the rules and fully comply, you actually suffer from what Melcous labeled as "more heavily scrutinized" (moderation). My view is that the current practice of such super-scrutinized editing of paid articles strongly discourages paid editors from following the process, pushes them to the grey area and also makes the life of paid-editing fighters more difficult as the volume of such edits and practices increase.

It also frustrates clients who are persuaded to follow the rules. One case where I had a greatly frustrated client was The National Memo case where the article has been rolled back 3 times and currently exists in a highly castrated form (more like a stub now). I had to return part of the payment and apologize. Had these edits been made from the single-purpose account, they'd most likely stayed. At the same time we have a lot of articles where large parts of the text go completely unreferenced and it is perfectly OK. Please don't remind me about WP:OSE, I think we both know what I am talking about.

I also noticed that around 70% of articles about lawyers and law firms were created from WP:SPAs (not necessarily through the AfC). This is an area where the demand is high and commercial interest is very obvious (lawyers earn big money). Editors probably understand that they won't be able to publish such articles the official way simply because people hate lawyers and Wikipedia editors hate paid edits. So the demand is here and shortcuts are pretty obvious. This practice also gives paid editors 1-2 week period to get their payment before the article gets deleted (if that happens). I've also seen some of the articles for the potential clients where they decided not to work with me and go for such shortcuts. All of them were made from single-purpose accounts.

Having said that I want to highlight that I truly understand some of these paid editing "watchdogs" and know that they want to make the project better. I only noticed that these edits rarely add value to the article, they are almost always just in "delete, delete, delete" mode (Melcous is a nice exception from this rule - they actually re-write the text and try to preserve content that has some value). So instead of fighting large amounts of quite clear undeclared edits, moderators spend their time on editing "easy targets" doing it easy way. One possible solution could be inviting some "inclusionists" for the improvement or having a broader discussion about such articles before editing. Hope it helps. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm advocating dealing with the SPAs, especially the sock SPAs, rather than relaxing the attitude. Blocking open proxies and VPNs would be an excellent first step. While it sometimes seems counterproductive to bother the disclosed PEs more than the undisclosed ones, disclosing cannot be a carte blanche to write promotional stuff. Bbarmadillo, you might want to correct the quote above. It misrepresents what I said a little. NPP != AfC. Thanks. Rentier (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Rentier removing your quote to avoid the confusion. To clarify, obviously paid entries should comply with Wikipedia guidelines - just like unpaid ones. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Along the lines of what has been said by Rentier: From my perspective, the solution is to more vigorously remove the articles by the obviously undeclared paid editors, and to raise the standards for all articles. There is ongoing progress here: We are in the process of tightening up our reliable source requirements for organizations, and a strict interpretation of them deal with at least the lower third. We are once more considering an increase in the number of edits to get confirmed status, (Unfortunately but necessarily, ACTRIAL will be entering the test phase where new editors can edit in mainspace, and this will cause a move of the problems from AfC to NewPages.) We are also considering ways to facilitate people reporting instances of paid editing, or approaches to their business by undeclared paid editors.
Even so, the problem of dealing with the hundreds of thousands of press releases masquerading as articles submitted in earlier years when standards were lower and people were less vigilant is a very difficult one, but not hopeless. We did manage to source or remove about 80,000 unsourced BLPs in a year back in 2010; we could probably screen all organization and corporate articles in 2 or 3 years starting with the oldest if there were more people interested in doing this.
The problem with even declared paid editing is NPOV. Some other declared paid editors have told me that their clients are reluctant to accept NPOV articles: they want advertisements. This has been confirmed by recent examples on-wiki, and by the nature of the arguments and many afds. It's also my experience that for those writing both paid and volunteer articles, the volunteer articles are better. It should be possible for us to find a way for paid editors to do more work in providing information for people writing articles. For example, we've been trying for many years with little success to persuade companies to provide freely licensed pictures of their notable products. But what is also needed is more volunteers interested in working on business topics.
Ultimately, I do not expect the measures I've mentioned or anything else now in view will completely solve the problem. They will help it. I'm going to make a guess that it will reduce the problem for incoming articles to half the present. Unfortunately, that will probably be matched by an increase in such articles for even smaller businesses. and for some currently under-represent countries.
The only way to solve the problem completely is to eliminate paid editing. The only way to eliminate paid editing is to require some sort of secure confidential identification for at least some types of articles. That would be a major change in the basic principle of Wikipedia, and would not currently be supported. Perhaps it will never be feasible to even discuss it in the future, because of the need to preserve privacy at least here external pressure. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
An interesting follow-up to our discussion here. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of article for Kesari Tours[edit]

Kesari Tours article has been deleted from Wikipedia because it was repeatedly recreated for promoting Kesari Tours in the past (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kesari Tours). If you go through the content written by me, I have not mentioned about any awards and achievements of Kesari Tours as mentioned in the past articles. I have completely referred to facts and figures mentioned in the news sites and they don't intend to promote Kesari Tours. I have cross checked the articles mentioned in the past and I completely agree that they were misleading and inappropriate. My objective of creating Kesari Tours on Wikipedia is to lead audience with appropriate facts and figures rather than mislead them. I am quite aware about the guidelines for creating an article on Wikipedia and I have always tried to stick around with the facts. It will be really helpful if you can review the content written by me and further guide me to edit the content which can be further reviewed by you before I upload it on Wikipedia. It will be a learning for an aspiring Wikipedia contributor as well.

I am also putting forward this request because in India many people get their tickets booked from Kesari Tours and we can also add a column of criticism where we can include a couple of fraud cases that customers have faced. At the end of the day, Wikipedia should be able to spread correct information. I am an independent contributor and I don't support any organization. Hence I am not a supporter of Kesari Tours but I want audience in India to be informed about the presence of this firm just like all the other companies. All of my statements are supported by news facts. As said before, I will edit the article as per your guidance and going forward I can keep monitoring the page to avoid addition of any wrong information or promotional content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadgetsgigs (talkcontribs) 09:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I wil recheck. DGG ( talk ) 14:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you sir! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadgetsgigs (talkcontribs) 05:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you have the chance to go through Kesari Tours article? If you guide me and send me a copy of the article, I can edit it and send it to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadgetsgigs (talkcontribs) 12:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello sir, did you have the opportunity to go through the article? Kindly check and let me know how to edit it so that it can be put together again. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadgetsgigs (talkcontribs) 13:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

    • needs response'


Deletion discussion[edit]

there is a discussion that would benefit from your experienced editing here.104.163.147.121 (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


Artist at AfD[edit]

Hi DGG, can you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Waugh (2nd nomination). I sent it to AfD, and it has devolved into a Bludgeon fest, with at least one of the !Keep editors having Canvassed. The !keep editors have participated in less than 50 AfDs each (with the most confident of them, only voting with consensus 47% of the time), and it seems like they are forcefully attempting to claim a rather different set of expectations around Artist 4(b) than I have seen elsewhere at AfD. Furthermore, the Bludgeoning seems to have discouraged any new voices from participating. Your experienced and impartial advice is welcome, either here, or on the AfD. --Theredproject (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

    • 'needs response

Obits...[edit]

When nothing but obits are cited, (some of which are in national RS) is that acceptable for notability of a recently deceased person who was a local social justice advocate 20 years ago? Just needing a gage for future reference. Atsme📞📧 02:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

It depends on the source. I trust full editorial obits in the NYT (after 1896) and the London Times. I am unsure about any other paper in those two countries for recent years, however reliable they may be for other purposes. There are other papers I trust for various parts of the 18th thru early 20th centuries. There are presumably equivalent ones in other countries, but I am less familiar with their standards.
An increasingly common problem with all newspapers, including the NYT, (and some National biographies) is their coverage of representative people, rather than important people, for obits and otherwise. This has not yet infected the NYT obit section.
Another problem is the focus of the NYT in the early 20th century upon high society figures. This tends to affect more the wedding coverage, but they are what people paid attention to back them. I'm not sure how to handle that aspect. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
=b TY... Atsme📞📧 04:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


Fair use of abstracts[edit]

The older catalogues I've seen reproduce abstracts freely, and so do many modern catalogues and publishers. But I've heard, unreliably, claims that abstracts can't be used under fair use, although I can't find any source for that online. Does Wikimedia have a policy on this? Could we store an abstract of a copyrighted work in Wikidata? HLHJ (talk) 03:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I am uncertain whether using them in WP would be considered fair use in US law, but they are indeed often used as if they were; use in WP in particular might well be considered sufficiently transformative. However, actual Wikipedia policy is very much more restrictive. Under the current enWP rules for free content in the English Wikipedia, WP:NFCC, I cannot see how they would be permissible for use in an enWP article.
All projects are bound by the general WMF copyright policy--the enWP policy is a permitted exemption under that policy. I do not know whether Wikidata has considered a corresponding policy exemption--it would obviously have to be different than that of enWP and tailored to their particular purposes, and I cannot even guess whether the foundation would consider it acceptable . DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
In the interim I did find one mention of abstract fair use online; here, scroll down to section 5.
I can't imagine they could be used in the article text; I was thinking of using them purely as a resource for searching for references in the bibliographic database being created on Wikidata, Wikidata:Wikidata:WikiProject Source MetaData (which many expect to eventually become its own project, like Wikisource or Wikiquote). My own private bibliographic database mostly contains abstracts, because it makes it much easier to find the reference I need to cite.
Wikidata appears not to have copyright policy exemptions.[14] So it looks to me like this is something to discuss later as a possible exemption for a bibliographic database project, if I've understood correctly.
Thank you very much for your help, you made it much easier for me to figure out what I needed to know. HLHJ (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey look, a barnstar for you![edit]

Art+Feminism Barnstar.svg The Art+Feminism Barnstar
Thank you for your support for Art+Feminism!
this WikiAward was given to DGG by Theredproject (talk) on 00:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


Administrators' newsletter – April 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

ANEWSicon.png

Guideline and policy news

  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

International Journal of Statistics and Medical Informatics[edit]

Hello DGG, I have noticed several SPA's adding thinly-veiled cite spam for this "journal" (in Clinical data management and a few other topics) and have reverted these additions. The added site is www.ijsmi.com. As you have a lot more experience with academia-related topics, would you mind taking a look at this site please to double-check my assessment? Despite its fancy title and nice layout the site's editorial team consists of 1 member named "Editor IJSMI" who is also the author of all articles (see author list on site). I am pretty sure this is not a reliable academic source per our RS guidelines, but a second opinion would be great if you got a bit of time. GermanJoe (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC) Recheck pis aller. But the real knack is to do more between the XML and the heart.


Amazing dissection of article sourcing at AfD[edit]

I thought this was an impressive analysis by user:Mduvekot - I've never seen this much effort put into an AfD before, and I wanted to share it.[[15]] TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

It's amazing, and impressive. So impressive that one can forget the individual data points are false binaries. I've discussed it in a little more detail at WP:Articles for deletion/Alexander Friedmann-Hahn. As the method is very likely to be used again, I'll try to give yet a fuller analysis. If not at this afd, at another. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


curators and gallerists[edit]

On 4 April 2018 in an AfD for Jan Allen, you wrote: "Admittedly, curators are difficult to document unless they had published works that would qualify as NAUTHOR or NPROF,, but important curators do just that. The minor publications shown here do not." A few day later, in an AfD on ALexander-Friedmann-Hahn, you wrote: "We have no workable standards for gallerists. It is not just a business in the ordinary sense, but one of the auxiliary professions that facilitate the fine arts. Considering their significance in that professional network, I think we should be very liberal here; I would say the same about similar auxiliary professions in other fields, such as music and science. It's the nature of such professions to be overshadowed by the artists etc. they serve, and I've always thought we should interpret the GNG standards in line with the nature of available sources in the field." Earlier, you had commented in an AfD about Casey Caplan "I continue to disagree that the mere fact the art shows take place at a particular art gallery make either of them notable."

Can you help me understand that apparent discrepancy between those statements? Vexations (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I am still working it out, to be honest. There was a sentence that I wrote for the last AfD "This is somewhat different from my earlier position."; I in the end omitted it to avoid confusion; I see I should have left it in. In trying to figure out what to do, I will deliberately try to make a case for various positions to seewhat convinces me or others. AfD needs to experiment a little before it settles down -- premature guidelines are often a lasting error.
The increasing number of articles (and discussions) on fine arts, partly the result of Art+Feminism and related projects are showing our need for clearer standards. This is especially important because in advising new editors, we need to be able to tell them what is or is not likely to be accepted. That after all is rthe real need--not to decide what we would like to accept, but to guide contributors. Ifthe situation is unstable, as it is now, there's no good way to guide them. I have learned deal with it in editathons etc by telling them to play absolutely safe or their first article. The role of an advisor is to be conservative..
Some particular points:
Galleries vs Gallerists. This is a problem with many similar professions where the business is essentially dependent upon the expertise or reputation of an individual. Rarely is it appropriate to make an article for both unless there's some really special distinction. If it'smulti-generational or a partnership, the choice is easy: the gallery/firm/etc. If the individual has a reputation beyond the particular gallery , then it's easy also--in other words, if he meets WP:PROF as an expert, or WP:AUTHOR. If unsure, I tend to go with the person because its easier to write bio articles.
notability for the shows or the artist because of the gallery There may be some galleries whose selectivity can indicate the artist showing there is notable. It would take some degree of agreement between experts about which they are, and it would be nice if we could find actual sources for this instead of our judgment.
notability for the gallery because of who shows there. This shouldn't be a matter of our judgment--it should take sources.
Sources for notability. There are books about the profession of selling artworks, which do not have the possible bias ofbeing about individual galleries, which would ake good sources. I know more about 19th c. UK, but there should be something available for later periods also.
substantial . We need to stop using mentions as being adequate sources. We've done this in many circumstances before to show notability of clubs etc. There should by now be better sources available. DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Appreciate the effort. Let's say that the roster of artists they represent contributes to notability if most or all of their artists are notable. Sprüth/Magers for example, represents Kenneth Anger, Keith Arnatt Estate, Richard Artschwager, John Baldessari, Bernd & Hilla Becher, John Bock, Alighiero Boetti, George Condo, Walter Dahn, Hanne Darboven, Thomas Demand, Philip-Lorca diCorcia, Thea Djordjadze, Robert Elfgen, Peter Fischli & David Weiss, Lizzie Fitch, Ryan Trecartin, Sylvie Fleury, Llyn Foulkes, Cyprien Gaillard, Andreas Gursky, Jenny Holzer, Gary Hume, Robert Irwin (artist), Donald Judd, de:Axel Kasseböhmer, Craig Kauffman, Karen Kilimnik, Astrid Klein, Joseph Kosuth, Kraftwerk, Barbara Kruger, David Lamelas, Louise Lawler, David Maljkovic, Anthony McCall, Robert Morris (artist), de:Reinhard Mucha, Jean-luc Mylayne, David Ostrowski, Otto Piene, Michail Pirgelis, Nina Pohl, Stephen Prina, Pamela Rosenkranz, Sterling Ruby, Thomas Ruff, Ed Ruscha, Analia Saban, Gerda Scheepers, Thomas Scheibitz, de:Frances Scholz, Andreas Schulze, Cindy Sherman, Stephen Shore, Alexandre Singh, Frank Stella, Robert Therrien, Ryan Trecartin, Rosemarie Trockel, Kaari Upson, Marcel van Eeden, John Waters, Andro Wekua, Andrea Zittel, so that seems pretty clear. (Note that Sprüth/Magers have been messing with their page, their website has been blacklisted etc. It was probably the intern, but I don't trust 'em) Now lets look at the roster of another gallery, Galerie Friedmann-Hahn: Josef Fischnaller, Giovanni Castell, Thomas Kaemmerer, Markus Fräger, Edite Grinberga, Anders Gjennestad, Sasa Makarová, Daniel Ludwig (artist), David FeBland, Christian Grosskopf, Anne Leone, Laura Nieto, olf Ohst, Mirko Schallenberg, Guido Sieber, Marc Sparfel, Marc Taschowsky, Donald Vaccino, Maximilian Verhas, Mia Florentine Weiss. Note that that the first in the second list is a highly promotional article by an SPA and the second notable artist has an article that was written by the same editor who wrote the article about the gallery. There's more tp say about that editor, but I'm trying not to poison the well. If you compare these two, it should be obvious that Sprüth/Magers is a blue-chip gallery that deals with artists whose works are in the most important museum collections and that F-H is in the words of a German editor a "third-rate gallery", or as I would put it more generously works in the lower-to-mid price range of the market. What objective criteria can we use in a notability discussion to make that distinction? WP:PROF works well; can we do something similar for creative professions?


company executives[edit]

As I understand it, our practice is to only include below the ceo for a really major company (e.g., there are some executives at companies like Alphabet who even have separate articles). The general approach I think should be parallel to WP:EINSTEIN. When you see it elsewhere, it is likely to be the results of promotional editing--it would be fair to say that at least half our articles on companies are unsatisfactory , because standards in the past were lower and very few reliable editors really paid attention to this field except for some areas of special interest like computers and automobiles.

a little more generally, the infobox guidelines and listings of permissible fields were particular loose in earlier years, but people are now paying infoboxes much more attention, and some of them are already been cleaned up a little.
Looked at in a different way, there is a difference between what one can get away with and what is best practice. When I give advice, I always give the safest and most conservative advice. Anything else would be unfair to people who do as I suggest and might be challenged. And it is important to recognize that the effective standards are considerable higher for paid editing. Whether this is right or wrong may be open to question, but at the moment, that's the way people look at it.
DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

arbs and content[edit]

my being in arb com has nothing at all to do with content disputes. Skill in content building is not one of the things considered in elections, arb com has no direct authority over content, and arb com will not directly intervene in content disputes until they become so heated that conduct is also involved. 
The reason I am sometimes asked to review content problems is because I participate widely at AfD and similar discussions, and therefore know in most fields not just the guidelines but the actual present consensus. I can therefore try to give advice that reflects not my own opinion on what ought to be in WP, but what will or will not in practice be accepted.
It seems to me that we have articles about individual episodes on many major shows. Whether we ideally should or not, we do. The question is whether Westworld is a sufficiently major show. Considering how sources like the NYT discuss each episode both in advance but afterwards, I think it is. If anyone wants to try afd, they can, but I think AfD will give a result of keep. In fact, I was surprised to see that we don't already have articles on the most important characters, because we do have them on some similar shows. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)\

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brigham D. Madsen[edit]

Also see--> William J. Hamblin

When considering academic authors, by what rough measures do you, as an editor, decide whether his or her work has: been cited/reviewed enough? received prestigious enough of awards? &c &c--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I use two standards.
Awards is relatively straightforward: the highest national or international level in the field.
Publications:
1. the level of work which would qualify for full professorship or at least tenure at a research university of the very highest standing. In the traditional humanities that is usually two books by a major academic publisher. For sciences, it goes by citations, and it varies by subject.
2. Comparison with others in the field., especially those with such positions.
Books, as such: being the leading or one of the leading books in the subject, as judged primarily by library holdings (and to some extent by citations--allowing for the very long time lag.) DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


Moving a Draft to Mainspace for Purpose of Deletion[edit]

You may ignore this post if you choose, but User:Legacypac suggested that I ask you. User:Legacypac has frequently, in discussions at Miscellany for Deletion, said that if a draft is not deleted in draft space, it should be moved to article space where it can be nominated for one of the A criteria for speedy deletion or Articles for Deletion. At least, that is what I think they are saying. I haven't actually seen them do that, and maybe there is ancient history that I don't understand. I think that moving a draft to article space that one thinks should be deleted is a terrible idea, and that the place for a page of questionable merit is draft space. In any case, I just tried to ask Legacypac, again, about these statements, this time with regard to Draft:Kopparapu Duo Poets, and was asked to ask you, with the comment that Legacypac thinks that I am trying to get them sanctioned. (At least I think they were implying that I and others are trying to get them sanctioned.) I know that I am not trying to get Legacypac sanctioned, but am asking them to explain a position that they repeatedly express that I am unable to understand or agree with. So: Do you think that sometimes drafts should be promoted, or moved from draft space to article space, in order to open up a mainspace deletion discussion? What is your view? I am not asking what Legacypac thinks. Only Legacypac can explain, and after their unfortunate short-term de-reviewing, they are in a bad mood. If you explain, thank you. If you disagree, thank you for explaining. If you would prefer not to discuss this issue, I will let it drop. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

How to deal with unsatisfactory AfC drafts is somewhat disputed. My opinion on the current situation is that the general mechanism for removing them is of course MfD. If there is dissatisfaction with a particular MfD decision, there's Deletion Review. If there's a feeling that MfD discussions in general are unreliable, then like any WP process, the remedy is to encourage more participation. If there's a view that additional deletion reasons are needed, then that can be discussed also. The situation is confused enough without being provocative.
There are some instances where it makes sense to take a questionable draft to mainspace and discuss it in an AfD. The standard for acceptance of a draft is officially that it is likely to pass AfD (though I and almost everyone else now considers "likely" to be somewhere in the range of 66 to 90%, not a bare 51%). But such numbers give a false impression of precision: decisions at AfD are inconsistent and unpredictable. In borderline cases, it may be impossible to really give a prediction, and the only way to find out may be to take it there and see. I've done it myself in some cases where there seemed no consistent practice, or an unusual question. But just doing it to get the content deleted is not a good idea.
If a contributor objects to a particular reviewers interpretation, they can submit it again for someone else to review (no reviewer should insist on being the only person to handle a particular AfC--though some contributors seem to think we do that ). And of course if someone insists on taking their chances and it isn't a speedy candidate, the simplest thing to do is to let them try. A delete at AfD will discourage improper re-creation. There are many good articles that were deleted that shouldn't have been, and many foolish ones that shouldn't have been allowed to stay--it is rarely productive to spend too much individual of community energy in arguing about a single article. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

More AFC Thoughts[edit]

You wrote: "If a contributor objects to a particular reviewers interpretation, they can submit it again for someone else to review (no reviewer should insist on being the only person to handle a particular AfC--though some contributors seem to think we do that)." I agree, but will comment. First, I and some other reviewers do not like to see a draft resubmitted without addressing the comments of the reviewer. If a contributor disagrees, they have semi-automatic options to discuss on the reviewer's talk page or to discuss at the AFC help desk, or can accept the advice to discuss at the Teahouse. If I see a draft resubmitted as is or essentially as is without addressing the comments, and without an explanation of why it is being resubmitted, I will not only decline but caution the contributor. Some contributors will resubmit over and over again without material changes (which often winds up at MFD - I would like to be able to report this as a conduct issue). Second, what do you mean about some contributors think we do that? I know that some contributors expect that a reviewer will follow a draft through the review process. I try to be diplomatic with them and get other reviewers to comment. Third, I don't know of any reviewer who insists on being the only person to handle a particular draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure DGG means some authors think a reviewer follows a draft all the way through multiple reviews. I'm not aware of any reviewer that tries to do that. The decline templates (wrongly) encourage discussion on the reviewer's talk so I understand where that idea comes from. See Draft talk:Ciera Rogers for an example where I think a move to mainspace and a test at AfD is in order. This user is not going to take AfC no for an answer and the topic - a social media personality - is one of those grey areas where it could go either way. Legacypac (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, many new contributors think that the same reviewer follow a draft all the way through, and it is natural that they think this way, because most of the world works in that fashion, especially when it's a matter of following up on suggested revisions, not outright rejection. In fact, OTRS at Wikipedia works that way: for email inquiries and complaints and requests for pages, the same OTRS agent follows the entire case unless they unlock it. The OTRS agents are by and large more experienced than the AfC reviewers, and make fewer mistakes. But I have seen the same sort of bad advice in both places, and the standard OTRS messages are even more nonspecific and unhelpful than the AfC ones.
And I have also seen reviewers try to keep a AfC case resubmissions returned to them. I haven't seen any absolutely insist, but I have seen it encouraged; and it is easily possible to watchlist a draft--there are many instances of successive reviews by the same person.
When a review is completely wrong, and the submitter is experienced enough to know that, it can make sense to resubmit unchanged, though anyone with some degree of subtlety will make at least some changes. I have however certainly seen people resubmit impossibly unacceptable material unchanged, on the hope that the next time they will get some reviewer careless enough to accept it--and they sometimes see their hope fulfilled.
Ideally, we when we encounter a previous bad review, we would follow it up with the reviewer. This is fairly easy to do with beginners at it, but much harder with those who have experience and have been doing it wrong consistently. I do sometimes, and try to word it as a suggestion. Sometimes, it makes a difference; sometimes I get ignored or challenged. As with similar situations at CSD or OTRS. I am very reluctant to really take issue with anyone whom I know to be stubborn, and even more reluctant to follow to the conclusion. I could easily spend all my time here on this, and although it might help WP, it would not help my own mental equilibrium. If it were a regular system of review or audit, it would be less personal. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I see bad decline reviews - I just override them and note up the talkpage. I have yet to see a strong enough pattern of bad declines to start a serious discussion. I assume most of us watchlist draft we touch anyway which will bring reviewers back to the page sometimes. Legacypac (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Obits..[edit]

Do you think an obituary in reputable newspapers like Telegraph et al is an auto-indicator of encyclopedic notability, in the event no other significant covg. about the subject could be discovered?~ Winged BladesGodric 05:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Winged Blades of Godric - That would depend on the newspaper's obituary policy. Some newspapers, including the Washington Post, which is considered a newspaper of record, have a policy that they will publish a true news obituary for any long-term resident of the area of the newspaper. (A long paid death notice that reads like an obituary is a different matter, but your question has to do with true obituaries under the byline of one of the obituary staff reporters.) Therefore a news obituary in the Washington Post is not in itself an indicator of encyclopedic notability. Other newspapers have mileage that may vary. Does that fail to answer your question? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
For the New York Times it is a clear determinant of notability at least for 1896+. I'm told this is true for the London Times also. I am insufficiently familiar with the Telegraph. The distinctions Robert McC gives above about paid obits is important to keep in mind in all cases. DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
IMO a full obituary in a broadsheet paper (UK: Times, FT, Observer, Telegraph, Grauniad) is normally a non-trivial reliable independent source, so counts towards WP:GNG. Paid obits, not so much. Guy (Help!) 00:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but the distinction is that the NYT and the Times are so reliable as to be sufficient by themselves without needing other sources. As for the others, as I said, I'm not familiar enough to know if they fall in this category. And for the US, a local paper regardless of format is I think usually not reliable for notability, and I think there is no clear level above that where a clear division can be drawn. To some extent I judge by the nature of the obit. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Sometimes. Yes for Obits published by universities. It probably depends on the author. The obit should make a claim of notability if it is being used as a claim of notability. Newspapers obits are paid, so take with salt. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment, replying to User:SmokeyJoe and following up to my comment and that of DGG: There may be three types of death reports in a newspaper, and one should be mindful of the distinctions. The first is a news obituary, which is written by a reporter, and is not paid for. Different newspapers have different policies on who qualifies for these. A news obituary in The Times or the NYT is an indication of notability. A news obituary, written by the obit writer, in the Washington Post is not necessarily an indication of notability. The second is a conventional paid death notice, normally placed by the undertaker. These are no indication of notability. The third is a hybrid, a paid death story, written like an obituary, but paid for by family. These can be mistaken for news obituaries, but they are not, and are not indications of notability. True obits are not paid for; they are written by staff, and they may or may not indicate notability; but true obits and hybrids can be confused, and require careful reading. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Well put, I agree. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
And I agree also. I think RMC's are exactly the right criteria. DGG ( talk )

(advice on articles on academics)[edit]

speaking generally.

(1) In reviewing this article, what I noticed first was the obviously incorrect name of the department; this sort of error is a warning signal to look at the original sources myself. This led me to the apparent vagueness and over-expansiveness of the claims; that's a common indication of careless promotional writing. PR staff, even in academic institutions, tend not to be concerned with getting that sort of detail correct. Because of this, in the absence of a formal CV it can be quite difficult to verify the details. This does not necessarily indicate an actual conflict of interest, because PR writing so pervades the world that many beginners here tend to fall into a similar style.
(2) All of the descriptions of a person in their lecture announcements and the like sre normally written by their publicity team or copied from their own statements. They never have third-party authority, no matter where reprinted. The extremely close similarity of them all demonstrates their common origin.
(3) There is an unfortunate tendency in Wikipedia to try to document statements by cherry-picking quotations that happen to use the word or phrase. References have to be used in context.
(4) There is a frequent tendency in Wikipedia to emphasise the current interests of a person as they themselves describe them--they not unreasonably want to write about what they are currently interested in. But WP is an encyclopedia , and must treat their career as a whole. Sometimes what fascinates a person in their later career is not what the major real contribution is. Sometimes it is otherwise. Here it seems to be a mixture: their recent "neuroscience" work is too trivial to mention, but the current high administrative position in the Church of England is probably of greater importance than their earlier authorship and consulting.
(5) In dealing with an author, it is often helpful to organize the description of their work around their successive major books.
As advice, to learn about notability, observe and participate at AfD. To lean about sources, keep up with the WP:RSN, the reliable sources noticeboard. The BLP Noticeboard is helpful also, but it mainly deal with particualrly contentious articles,not how to deal with routine material. DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks Sir... for explaining to me about the page for the late Ali Banat Farid999111 (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


Student drafts[edit]

...

Our practices about drafts in general are quite unsettled at this time--I think everyone involved knows the system is confusing, over-complicated, cumbersome, much too slow, and unsatisfactory in almost every respect. It is effective neither at getting usable material into mainspace, nor keeping unacceptable material out of Wikipedia. Everyone centrally involved has a different idea of how to fix it, and some of them are trying out their ideas at cross purposes.
The only guaranteed safe way at present for a student to proceed at this point is to do the development outside Wikipedia. Personally, I think we should be able to do better: one of the basic concepts of Wikipedia is that it should itself be a place for people to develop articles. I hope to be able to make better suggestions in a few weeks. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikiprojects (was Fifth Wall ventures)[edit]

Wikiprojects are groups of all WPedians interested in a topic, and are not restricted to those expert in the topic. They have no independent authority, and have only as much autonomy as the community as a whole is willing to give them. To what extent they can set standards in their area depends upon the extent to which the community as a whole through its actions at afd supports them. This varies by project. A few specialized projects -- some small, some large -- have great respect in the community, but even they can lose that respect if the rest of us decide not to follow their lead.
Experienced editors likewise. In particular standards change, and in the field of articles about business, the standards have changed to the extent that the change is shown not just by practice but a far-reaching change in the basic relevant guideline, NCORP, and its wide acceptance at AfD. In any particular field, there are sometimes a few currently dominant editors, but they can lose their dominance quickly if their views no longer find acceptance. And among those most active, there will usually be some who try to maintain the current status, and some who seek to change it.
I show different sides in different situations, and try to keep them apart: when making a decision I strictly follow the current consensus; when giving others advice, I try to give the safest advice possible; when arguing for my views, I often try to lead the community a little. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


Nextdoor[edit]

DGG, I respect the view your expressed at Nextdoor very much and in the normal course of events, that's ideal. There's a proposal, an independent editor reviews it and says yes or no or asks me to make changes. Maybe there is some discussion or an RfC. It's all pretty straightforward. All I tell people who hire me is that I will try to get them a fair article, stay strictly within WP policy and act ethically above all else. I turn down maybe 4 out of 5 people who ask for help because their requests seem invalid to me. I'm independent - no one can hoist an assignment on me. I come up with my own article language for a proposal, based on what I think is fair and allowable under WP policy, and only have clients do a review for accuracy.

For Nextdoor, I am only hoping for fairness and NPOV from editors who take the time to review all the relevant sources. emark came after a specific matter in question had been decided contrary the editor's position.

Any mistakes in judgment are my own, as the company has only asked the article be fair. They're leaving it to me to decide how to best accomplish that.-BC1278 (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278
Fair" tends to mean, "a fair statement of my POV". Our rule is neutral, as judged by those with no stake in the matter, not a negotiated compromise between NPOV and a subject's position. I appreciate the difficulties our policy must present for you, which is one of the reasons we should consider abolishing paid editing. DGG ( talk ) 07:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)



Notability for departments within universities?[edit]

If you have a moment, may I please trouble you for an opinion on where/how the notability bar is set for pages for individual departments within universities? I see "expected outcomes" suggests they are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field but I'm wondering how this is assessed: at NPP I came across this one for Texas Tech's philosophy department essentially made of a few thin sources (several campus student paper refs since added), two sentences of prose and a list of redlinks to people who mainly don't seem (at cursory review) to be notable. When I redirected (Texas Tech's main page already has a content fork for "academics" with plenty of room to expand), the page creator reverted saying "Please afd". So that I might have a better index on such things--does AfD seem appropriate to you or would you let it be?

An additional reason I wanted to ask you (beyond your particular expertise in universities) is that I share your concern for clogging up AfD with school matters when there's so much commercial promo to be dealt with, and the latter so much more detrimental to the encyclopedia--but then, this one felt like promo to me (and no doubt universities and departments, especially in the US, have strong economic incentives to seek opportunities for promotion.) So I wasn't sure.

Thanks much for any thoughts. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, it seems I will find out at AfD! Though will of course continue to be very glad for your thoughts in whatever venue, especially as I think about how I should balance such entries with other AfD concerns going forward. Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Possibly these pages are created in good faith by ex-students or academics, but universities are big business these days, so in my view articles like these could also be seen as a form of advertising. I agree that there may be bigger priorities on Wikipedia, but this author seems to be blatantly refusing to improve the article or prove notability. Sionk (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)2 The bar should be set pretty high on these, but for example the English department at Cambridge (with F.R. Leavis etc) has had almost as much written about it as the Wars of the Roses. Some departments have been very influential in the development of an entire subject area, but most deserve at best a section in the uni's article. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I consider the appropriate standard to be world-famous within the discipline, either currently or historically. This could also be worded, as about the 5 or 10 best known in the discipline, on a world-wide basis. There is a possible narrower standard, famous enough for outsiders to know about it. There are in my opinion a few universities where some or even most of the departments do meet this qualification, and a few dozen others that will have one or two such departments. They are rarely a matter of general interest significant enough for an encyclopedia. Regardless of the possible promotional intent, the articles usually are indistinguishable from the department web pages, which are characteristically written to attract the interest of prospective graduate students. I don;t think the 1pm has much to do with the rise of big business influence--the academic world from its medieval origins to the present has been in large part dependent on reputation, because a department becomes famous by attracting students and faculty that will make it famous.
As is usual at WP, most of the departments that need articles do not have them, while most of the articles we do have are not appropriate, I've always meant to work on the ones that are needed. I fully share Innisfree987's concern about clutter; WP does need more coverage of the academic world, but this is best done thru a biographical approach, increased attention to particularly notable books, and the NPOV presentation of academic tendencies.
(As limitations, I can judge best for the US, and sometimes the UK, and I may not be aware of developments in the last 10 or 15 years.) To give an example of my standards, in library science there have been only two, both defunct: Chicago and Columbia. In ornithology, there's one US department more famous than any other: Cornell, both now and historically. In a very large & influential field like Physics, there might be over a dozen.
There are beginning to be a few truely reliable sources: institutional history by outside scholars. Student newspapers and alumni publications are never reliable for this, nor are isolated statements of excellence without context. In most cases, it has to go by documentation of the ranking and inference from the faculty and alumni. Because of the need to show influence, they will mostly be found in the oldest and most famous research universities. As a caveat, a single famous personality is not enough to make a department famous. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
No, indeed. A good test might be (for historical ones) whether sources talk of a "Fooish school" - see Vienna School for examples - apart from music, we have 4 articles on groups essentially based at university departments. Also Cambridge School (intellectual history) etc. Johnbod (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes quite--had a similar thought about the Chicago School being an unimpeachable claim of notability for those department, but wondered where we drew the line afterward (since by contrast we are quite liberal with secondary schools--appropriately, in my mind.) But unlike secondary schools, which if outside a public school system will have no place in the encyclopedia if deleted, departments can always be covered on their college's page until a content fork is truly required. So nothing is lost if one holds the line a bit more closely. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks so much DGG for these thoughts; very clarifying. True indeed about academia always running on reputation (and incentive to promote thus nothing new). I think this case just particularly smelled off to me because the original links were touting the master's program in particular, and in a field where a doctorate is the standard terminal degree, master's programs are typically less a source of intellectual capital than just ... regular capital.
Agree very much that scholarly institutional histories are the best means of validating significance; and conveniently also serve wiki-notability standard's other purpose, i.e. to identify not only the most important subjects but the ones for which we have sufficient independent sources to write something balanced and fully realized without resorting to original research. Perhaps if I run out things to write for fun (!), I'll dig into my collection of those materials. But yes meanwhile I think I'll carry on with biographies and sometimes books; I'm not sure how many academic departments I really feel excited enough about to want to work up a summary of their institutional history. Probably just the ones I like to imagine I've done in an alternate universe (so... just HistCon, really.)
Thanks again! Innisfree987 (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Wiki-cookie[edit]

Having a party tonight and sharing a cookie with you for your help over the years

.

I hit twenty four thousand edits tonight and became a senior editor on Wikipedia. Thank for your help over the years. -O.R.Comms 03:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


your opinion please...[edit]

I just drafted a very short essay on civility, User:Geo Swan/Pick one. If you have time, I'd appreciate your opinion. Your talk page readers are invited to comment too, at User talk:Geo Swan/Pick one.

I think you are a prime example of someone in the first quadrant, of User:Geo Swan/Pick one#Four quadrants

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


Heads up - userfied something else[edit]

Back in this MfD about a month or so ago (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pseudo-Richard/Antisemitic canards related to money, banking and finance) I userfied the main article under deletion under your userspace (User:DGG/Jewish stereotypes in banking and finance). It was recently pointed out to me that there was a second bundled article, which I have now userfied to you as well at User:DGG/History of Jews in American banking. If you don't want that one, let me know and I'll undo myself. Cheers! ♠PMC(talk) 20:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Please leave them both, so I can work on them. But I'm going to do the Role of Jews on the American film industry first--because this topic is absolutely genuine; Jews did dominate Hollywood during the studio system, whereas they never dominated banking and finance. That antisemites decried the Jewish dominance of the American film industry is undeniable, butt the phenomenon was real. Jews tried in response to anti-semitism to hide this somewhat during the 20s and 30s (and even a little later), but that's part of real history also. It's characteristic of prejudice that the prejudiced group tends to disparage their victims for their real roles and characteristics, as well as the imaginary. DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
If there's anyone I trust to do a balanced article on this kind of topic, it's definitely you. Will definitely be interesting to see once it's done. ♠PMC(talk) 00:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

... in fiction[edit]

  • While I'm here, please note that List of giant animals in fiction has been nominated again. In the previous discussion, you said that "I am frankly a little exasperated at people coming here with things they say cannot be sourced, when they haven't found the obvious ones in even the Google. WP: BEFORE should be an absolute requirement...". Matters have not improved as editors not only don't search themselves; they don't acknowledge good sources when they are presented. This looks like a case of WP:IDHT to me... Andrew D. (talk) 08:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I will defend essentially any ... in fiction article that has content. I think that's the sort of thing that WP can do very well, and that this sort of content is in fact the subject of serious study. As for sourcing, you are also s librarian, so you know the general rule that most people will not look beyond those free sources found on the first page of Google. I have never known anyone other than a librarian or a patent attorney actually do a comprehensive search all the way through Google, . Perhaps 10% of people here will use library resources-- even if they can get them free through their library on the internet . As for printed books, the main people who use them here are subject enthusiasts who have their own collections. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


sources[edit]

do you have specifics contradicting any of the sources? Some of the sources, for example, Strabo, Ptolemy, Livy, Arrian, Thucydides, etc. are used by all modern scholars. The Smith dictionaries are extensively used and followed by others (more modern) such as the Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World and An inventory of archaic and classical poleis. I'd like to know of conflicting information. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


Gender and Research[edit]

David, usually we take inclusion in Scopus as a sign of notability. However, in this case Scopus says that the journal was indexed "from 2016 to 2017" (which I generously interpreted as "indexed in 2016 and 2017", although it could very well mean that it was included from Jan 1 2016 to Jan 1 2017). If the journal would currently be indexed, this would read "from 2016 to present". So it was only 1 or 2 years and Scopus and has since been delisted. It was PRODed earlier today (not by me) and I assume that you'll want to dePROD because it is published by the Czech Academy of Sciences. Regardless of that, what do you think about Scopus? If this were some obscure (but honest) publisher, would you take the listing in those 2 years as a sign of notability or not? (We don't have this issue with ISI, because their Master Journal List only lists journals that are currently indexed, not journals that at some point in the past have been indexed.) Thanks! Best, --Randykitty (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

When Scopus was first published, I reviewed it at some length in the professional literature ("Comparative Reviews of Scopus and Web of Science." with Louise Deis:

The Charleston Advisor (Nov 2005) 7 (2) 5-20; my current link for this is broke--I will locate another) . and supplemented my review approximately biannually as it improved. The deliberate intent of Scopus was to cover the scholarly literature more broadly than ISI, including considerably more material on the social sciences, and somewhat more third world material. ISI responded to it by broadening its own coverage, Scopus did similarly, and the 2 have been continuing this ever since. There is a difference--ISI stratified its product, Scopus has kept a single database.

With respect to its coverage for this journal, Scopus has covered through the latest published issue, 2017 no.2. (there are 2 issues/year). It says it has listed 16 items, which from the Journal's table of contents is the total of all substantive articles published in those two issues, so it has covered the entire year. Looking at the journal's archive, until 2016, this journal published almost entirely material by Czech authors; mostly dealing with Czech-related subjects, and almost entirely written in Czech, often without even an English abstract . Considering the Scopus coverage criteria [16], it would not possibly have met them in those years. The journal is now apparently trying for a broader audience. According to the Scopus title list [17] , coverage is ongoing. I do not know why the Scopus previews link said otherwise. Their documentation is not known for consistency. It would be premature to say discontinued until there are 2018 published issues Scopus does not cover , or it appears on the (very interesting ) Scopus discontinued list : [18] Or, of course, if there are no 2018 issues after another year or so. Since they are publishing each issue as a special topic issue, it's hard to predict publication dates.
In general, as you know, I take a much broader view of journal notability than you. This one may be borderline. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks David, for that detailed analysis. I missed that there was simply no 2018 issue yet to index. Given that it is indexed by Scopus, I'm going to dePROD it. As for my more restrictive stand on journal notability: I try to maintain clear objective criteria, it is often difficult enough to get people to accept to keep journals that clearly meet NJournals... --Randykitty (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Wednesday Salon Introduction[edit]

I'd very much like to meet you tonight. Vyeh (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Vyeh, Ditto. I will probably be there at the NYC meetup by about 6:40. DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


Global Wireless Solutions[edit]

Hi DGG, I am a paid contributor for Global Wireless Solutions and noticed your edits on the page. I am curious why you categorized the "examples of network benchmark tests" as spam, despite none of them including links to the Global Wireless Solutions webpage? The footnotes were all external news articles and Global Wireless Solutions did not have any influence on them. Please let me know what the problem is for my future understanding. Thank you! Scwiki3 (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

your including them could be see as link spam--a way to get links in WP from famous entities that are only incidental to the subject of the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback! I have included your edits in my proposed edits on the Global Wireless Solutions talk page, as well as replaced the "press release" languge with more informative, concise content. I would greatly appreciate it if you could look at my proposed edits and approve them if they are satisfactory. If you approve them, then the press release tag at the top of the Global Wireless Solutions page should be resolved. Furthermore, now that I have been disclosed as a paid contributor to the Global Wireless Solutions page, the COI/"close connection" tag at the top of the page has been resolved and so it would be great if you could manually remove it as well. Thanks! Scwiki3 (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Good work. Your knowledge of the products helped make for a more compact presentation, and I replaced the corresponding text with your new version (I cleaned up the wording: see the talk p for details. I rarely copyedit paid work to this degree, but the extent of your changes indicates you can learn our style, and it is easier to teach these things by example. . Now rewrite the remainder DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I have added edits of the remainder, focusing on removing repetitive information from the History section and making it clear and concise for the readers. If you approve these edits, I think it would be best for you to copy and paste all of my proposed edits on to the page as I noticed there were a few footnote problems when only part of the text was copy&pasted. Also, if these edits are sufficient then hopefully you will be able to resolve the tags at the top of the Global Wireless Solutions page. Thank you! Scwiki3 (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


nursing bios[edit]

Thanks for the encouragement, DGG. I'm slowly working on a number of BLPs in nursing as well as science diplomacy and related fields. I appreciate your edits; thanks! Vothlee (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Vothlee

Undisclosed Paid editing[edit]

Here is the link of https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~017606e1f806e37476

Needs to hire 10 Freelancers Review and Accept submission of Recording Artist Famoe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Famoe 157.37.205.249 (talk) 06:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

How does it happen that you saw that upwork page; it's apparenty restricted to those with an account. Please email me from my user talk page; or email arb com at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In either case your identity will be considered confidential, but I do not like to proceed upon anonymous accusations where I cannot see the evidence. DGG ( talk ) 14:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018[edit]

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Other
Moving to Draft and Page Mover
  • Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
  • If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
  • Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
  • The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
  • The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.


NPP[edit]

...

Fram, it seems we are two of the very few people who use NPP to check on autoconfirmed editors. I use the old list interface to scan quickly for anomalies, but I only get to it every week or so for a little while. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Same here, I only see a fraction of the new pages, but I look at them without prejudice wrt autoconfirmed, reviewed, ... Of course, there are editor+topic combinations I don't bother reviewing (e.g. Lugnuts creating a List-A cricketer article, these can be reasonably be assumed to be factual and notable (according to our very loose criteria)), but otherwise I have seen too many "accepted" editors creating problematic articles (copyvio, hoaxes, ...). And with ACTrial permanently implemented, we have a bit more time to look at these instead of the endless crapfest we had before! Fram (talk) 06:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

faculty bios ...[edit]

More generally, it would appear that a number of other articles on faculty at the USC Dept of Gerontology have been written by publicists. I am going to assume that these were people in the position before you, but if they are still active, please alert them to the need to declare.

Even more generally, looking at the category for USC faculty, it appears that an unusual number of them have similarly been written by PR staff in a consistent manner. Other universities do this also, but the proportion of such articles from USC is unusually high. If you should happen to know your colleagues who are doing this, please make them aware of our requirements. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


WP:BEFORE and other AfD advice[edit]

Please remember to do WP:BEFORE background research before nominating articles for deletion. I've seen many of your AfD noms fail–they could've easily been avoided had more research been done. I've made similar mistakes in the past and it's easy to correct them. I've rarely seen you mention in your nominations that you did one, while there are sometimes a dozen articles extra on the subject that may make it pass WP:GNG or other notability guidelines.

This link shows that you nominate many articles for deletion and it's good that many are successful, but bad that so many aren't.

This is just a friendly message with advice... no worries here. I know that you are an experienced editor here and have respect from the community due to your activity here and I appreciate it a ton, but there are basic errors I've seen you make and I'm just pointing them out.

Always happy to help.
Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 23:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I know not everyone understands what my purposes are in deletion discussions. Although some questions involved in determining notability or promotionalism are cut-and-dried, other aspects remain uncertain. And even for our accepted rules, the boundaries between the acceptable and the not acceptable are almost always fuzzy. I have for many years chosen to involve myself with the undecided and the fuzzy. This necessarily implies my nominations do not always suceed--if they always did, I would not have successfully identified the disputable cases.
Additionally, consensus can change, and I have definite ideas on which directions I would like it to change. My method of working is to carefully try to see and affect the views people have here. I try to do this cautiously, and not be over-persistent on any one point; but I continue to advocate for them from time to time as occasion offers; and I do not concentrate too hard on any one issue, because I have several of them in mind. The only way to see if an argument is more likely to convince people than in the past, is by trying.
Further, I have some basic principles that others may not share. For example, I consider avoiding promotionalism far more important than deciding borderline notability. I like simple ways of deciding that do not rely on the variable interpretation of nebulous terms. And, just as long as we maintain verifiability, I consider sourcing much less important than importance as judged within the subject. As you must be aware, the people taking interest in any one discussion vary. If a discussion should happen to attract people who dislike the way I look at things, the result will not go my way. I consider this the necessary consequence of deciding questions the way WP does, by the consensus of those who are for the moment interested.
I never look at my the statistics of afds I nominate or participate in. Anyone can get a perfect record by only doing the obvious, as it is necessary when a candidate at RfA. I do not even watchlist the discussions. I do keep track of ones that I want to return to--either in a few months, when there may be a more representative set of participants, or in a year, as consensus begins to change, or in 5 years, when it has done so, or in 10, when we mature into a better realization of our responsibilities.
I do not argue to win individual decisions; I argue to change opinions more generally. ( This means I will often lose, but that does not bother me, as long as we are making progress in what I consider the right direction, or as a last resort, just keep things from getting even more wrong-headed) Any topic it would really bother me emotionally to lose, I do not engage with on Wikipedia. And I make mistakes. When I do, I say so. Very few other people do that, and I have never been able to understand it.
In particular, since you mention it, I sometimes do use guesswork about whether there will or will not be sources. I think I'm pretty good at it, but I am not perfect. (very few people are, see the AfD for John J. Kerrigan. or Richard Ziser . ) I do not think this particularly wrong, because I do not give opinions about what I want kept or deleted primarily on the basis of sourcing, though I try to also argue in the conventional way for those who insist on it. No one has the right to expect that I will argue as they would like me to. All that anyone has the right to expect of me, is that I go by the established consensus in making administrative decisions.
And, to get down to issues, our most recent disagreement is Christopher Bergland. Frankly, I consider article unencyclopedic, regardless of details of sourcing, unless it is actually of really general interest. It's the sort of coverage we should minimize. The policy here is NOT INDISCRIMINATE., which is the true foundation of all inclusion guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
as usual, a well reasoned and cogent response from DGG. Wikikit stalker - meowr! Coolabahapple (talk) 06:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Interesting discussion. We sometimes vote at the same AfD, and I take note of what you say. I find it interesting you don't base your votes primarily on sourcing, which is my primary basis of voting, except that I will vote for a WP:TNT on articles so poorly written (or WP:PROMO) that I don't want the general public to see them in that state.
I think I might share your view, which I believe is that we have too many articles about unnotable athletes. I find it incredible that we have the WP:NOLYMPICS rule that anyone who ever participated in any Olympics is automatically notable. That seems a glaring and unreasonable exception to our rules, and I cannot understand how on earth we have such a rule. Some of these athletes have zero secondary sources, but we still have an article? I am curious if you have any thoughts on that issue and how that rule came into being. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
1) I think the rule came into being to avoid the tens of thousands of debates that would have occurred otherwise. Including non-notable people does very little harm, provided that what we say can be verified and that there is nothing that might violate BLP. Engaging in extensive afd debates when it doesn't matter does do harm, for it impairs our ability to focus on the important issues. I wish we had many more fixed rules for what we would ordinarily cover/not cover. I would support them even if I did not altogether agree with them, because it simplifies our procedures. (In fact, I would usually support them even if I totally disagreed. Consensus only works if we put up with each other. )
2) There are a number of areas where I think we have too many articles. I think that everyone has this opinion, except that the areas they think over-covered differ. This is a communal enterprise, and I think we can only proceed without conflict by letting other people have their harmless over-coverage in their areas of interest, provided it does not interfere with what we individually consider proper coverage in our own areas of interest. For example, I will gladly accept the athlete in exchange for accepting an article on each species of organisms. Everyone's examples will differ here. But the only way to get an encyclopedia the way I would want it would be to make it myself. As this is impossible, compromise is necessary. Consensus only works if we put up with each other. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I can't agree with you that declaring certain topics or people notable simply to reduce time spent at AfD is a good idea, but I do respect the idea that having simple reasonable metrics can make complex decisions simpler. (For example, I would like a database that makes it easy to lookup particular sources and our overall assessment of their reliability, including past discussions.) If we have more articles, then that means more maintenance of those articles for accuracy. When I hit random article, it far too frequently goes to some obscure athlete, often someone in the Olympics with virtually zero WP:SECONDARY. This seems a bit unfair to other topics and people, like say movie stars and film directors who have to reach a far higher bar with WP:NARTIST. My feeling is that WP:NOLYMPICS means we are effectively promoting the Olympics by disproportionately waiving notability rules for Olympians while doing the opposite for other fields. It's a bit strange given the demographics of our editors.
Being an inclusionist, I tend not to worry about "over-coverage", as long as there is WP:RS that underpins the text. But given that we have long-standing rules of the minimum requirement for an article, I do believe we should apply them uniformly. If the standard is *multiple* independent secondary sources, I am frustrated that Olympians get a free pass, but others do not. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
If we're talking about athletes, I do not see how the coverage of Olympics in WP has a significant promotional effect in comparison to their already achieved status, nor does it affect the career of individual athletes--they either win, or they don't. I'm much more concerned in this connection with some other fields of endeavor. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the individual athletes, I'm talking about our articles promoting the Olympics, which has become a huge industry. By having articles on numerous people simply because they participated in this event, it sends the message that the event is *extremely* important. The Olympics is a billion dollar business. See their marketing materials here. See also [19][20][21][22]. (I take note that our article Olympic Games seems to give fairly limited coverage of profits, revenues, and advertising mentioned in those articles I easily pulled up in this Google search.) --David Tornheim (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


Organization advocacy[edit]

The simplest rule to follow is that it looks like it would make an effective web page on your site, it will not do here. Your web page says what you would like people to know about your organization--an encyclopedia article says what ordinary people would want to do. This includes the general outlines of your work, but not why the problems it tries to deal with are important. It shouldn't include a list of minor projects, and for those projects that are worth mentioning, it shouldn't describe why the work is important, just say what was done. ( for an example, section 4.1 should not include the second sentence. ) It shouldn't include minor awards; for the awards worth mentioning, it shouldn't cite the vague terms customary in the award announcement. It has to give the source of each reference without people having to look it up. It shouldn't cite press releases, it shouldn't include material such as material derived only from the organization, such as the Guidestar statement that ""this report represents Direct Relief's responses". It should eliminate adjectives of praise or importance. 9792 this]. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

High standards[edit]

I strongly support articles for all notable academics. In particular, I have from my first years of WP strongly supported articles for academics in fields that have traditionally been ones where the majority of the people were women. 10 years ago there was explicitly worded opposition to covering people in such fields--I think the records of earlier afds will show I took a leading role in trying to get them included--we still have a long way to go in some of these fields-- there are a great many women who meet the standards for WP:PROF that need articles written, and I support the organized efforts to write them.
But' the standards for the 21st century and the late 20th century academics are the same for all genders and ethnic groups and nationalities. I recognize there is still a considerable degree of gender and other discrimination in the academic world, but an encyclopedia has to go by accomplishments, not by what there might be if the world were better. (In earlier centuries, when opportunities for women were extremely limited, I certainly support taking account of this in the expectations for accomplishment). Saying we should accept anything less than the same standard is like saying good enough, for a woman, the traditional patriarchal condescending way of thinking. I sometimes see that others still think that way; it is one of the insidious effect of prejudice that those discriminated against and their supporters have also had their own thinking influenced; that's part of the mechanism by which prejudice continues. '

. DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Nice words. .... Your notions and reaction are completely contrary to your flowery prose. Sorry you do not convince. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
as I said a long time ago, I am not so unrealistic as to argue to convince my opponents. I argue to convince those who might see the discussion. There are only two options, one is that the same standards apply, and the other is the perpetuation of prejudice. DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, actually I want to be convinced. FYI I am involved in linking papers to authors. I do add genders to the info so that it makes clear the extend the gender gap is involved in co-authors. GerardM (talk) 08:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Looking at your excellent recent work, I am not sure what we might be quarreling about. The main difference is that for scientists I focus more of demonstrable scientific accomplishment as measured by publication, and you focus a little more on press coverage.of human interest aspects. Myself, I do still distrust press coverage of " human interest"; I think it has the same lack of relevance to notability for scientists as it does it other fields--and if the scientist is notable by WP:PROF, trying to add human interest tends to detract from it. This is I consider to be based upon my feeling thta human interest inevitably always leads to promotionalism ; but it is also possible to see it as representing a somewhat cold-blooded or distant attitude to people, or a fear of sentimentality. .
But if you mean that we still disagree on the relative weight to give underrepresented groups, there need be no practical dispute, if those wishing to cover the underrepresented groups do as I have always recommended, start with the most notable by unambiguous and accepted criteria. There are thousands of such articles to write; after we've done them, it will be time to discuss the middle range,for the middle range, the borderline notable, will always be borderline no matter where we draw the border. DGG ( talk ) 09:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
The biggest difference between you and me is that you insist on being the arbiter who decides who deserves to be seen as a notable scientist. I don't. When I start with a scientist who "is in the news / on Twitter", I seek out their authority control data and only when they have an ORCID identifier they get the full treatment. Meaning that I import their papers, their co-authors and link it all. These people may come to me as recipients of awards as well. What I find is people who have been deleted because ... no clue really when I note people like with this gentleman who was deleted never mind the prestigious awards that were bestowed on him previously. Oh yes, those awards were Finnish..
When you insist on doing the most prestigious scientist first, you expect that there is a list or something that makes it easy for you to allow them to exist. Such a list does not exist and if anything it is not static. A women gets the Nobel Prize, her algorith gives us a peek at a black hole upsetting any scheme we might come up with. I reject your notions where the news does not play a role in who gets attention. Your notions fail because we are not in the business of writing a magnus opum on scientists, we are writing an encyclopedia. We write it for a public who expect to find those scientists who are notably present in the news. When you are right and a bit of cold water is to be dropped on the relevance of a scientist, it must be in the article if we are to do any good. In what I do, I serve a public. I understand the limitations of what I can achieve and exposing thousand of scientists many with hundreds even thousands of papers is not the same as me proposing articles like for Professor Lawn who is one of the foremost experts on neonatology and makes a big impact on child mortality. Yes, she has an article and I am grateful.
When I read your arguments, they are about you. What motivates you. Consequently your arguments do not translate in a way that allows others to consistently emulate your actions. Your arguments are not even universally accepted, they are rejected by many. So my question to you is how can your POV be made objective and workable. As it is, it makes you and your opinions contentious. Given the good work that you do, that is not what we want. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
You are right, my arguments are explaining the way I look at things. That's because I view our decisions of notability as primarily subjective--decisions based on individual values and understandings of what WP should be like. Understanding the different ways people look at a problem is in such cases the way to go forward. Myself, I do have a definite understanding of what is meant by academic notability in the RW, And I think WP should follow it. It has everything to do with accomplishments , and nothing to do with outside sources. (I have similar views in other fields, but I am not there an expert in just what the field considers notability to the extent I am in the area where I have spent all of my career, and I therefore do not argue them in quite as positive a manner.)
I altogether understand your view that we need to provide information about those things that are rightly or otherwise in the news, and that people will come to WP to find information on. (That's the basis of my continuing effort to cover pseudoscience) I think your statement on that above is one of the clearest such statements, and I think what you say is a perfectly valid consideration.,Buy when we cover people this way, we need to cover them accurately. Covering them accurately means stating the limited nature of their actual scientific work, and those article I have seen rarely do that. They instead pretend that the oerson is notable as a scientist, and attempt to convince the reader of that .That was in fact the basis for my ill-starred attempt to write a rational article on Phelps. She's never been notable as a scientist, but rather as a figure that ORNL wants to publicize to pretend they are giving opportunities to minorities.
We have to cover the world as it is, but we also have to maintain objective standards, There are some areas where this is impossible, such as some areas of entertainment, and I simply don't work there.
I'm continuing this discussion not exactly to convince each other, but in the hope we can better understand each other's way of looking at things, and to some extent, take them into account. In other words, I am fully convinced my way of looking at these problems is basically correct, but I know it does not encompass all reasonable considerations: It's basically correct, not completely correct,. DGG ( talk ) 08:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Again I have some points to make. First, some scientists are not necessarily known for their science but for other aspects than just their published record. Even with scientists known for their published work, we do not make it easy on our public. We do show the ORCiD in the Source Control template but we do not show their "Scholia", it is more informative. A precedent for something similar is the inclusion of "Worldcat". As you mention "pseudoscience", you will agree that this is beside the point, the subject is diversity in Wikipedia for scientists.
The biggest beef I have with your POV is "authority". You tell me, the world that you know best and are to be trusted in this. As long as this trust is unchallenged no problem. However, your authority is challenged and what I find is that you indicate that it is subjective, you use words like "pseudo science" in this conversation and even though I know you mean it as a sidestep it comes across as a challenge to the legitimacy of the people who gain attention thanks to the "women in red" et al efforts.
The problem is that your foothold on authority is challenged for instance in this Finnish gentleman with existing awards, who has an award conferred on him by a American diabetes organisation. Diabetes is very much in the news thanks to the outrageous prizes charged by US companies for insulin. We need to cover this ground extensively. This is just another article deleted for the wrong reasons. What I find is many white US males with really poor articles who are not challenged and it becomes then all too easy to dismiss your POV as biased. That is my problem. What I ask of you is to make your criteria more objective and that these criteria are evenly applied. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Question on Notability / AfD -- secondary sources based on a press release[edit]

I'd like your opinion on whether we consider a topic or person notable if they have multiple independent WP:SECONDARY WP:RS on them, but it is easy to see that the secondary sources (with by-lines of journalists working for the periodicals) were based mostly or almost entirely on the same press release. I can see an argument for and against such a person/topic being notable. I'm not familiar with any guidelines about this. What is your opinion? --David Tornheim (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

If secondary sources are based on a press release they do not cou nt for notability . They never did, and this has been clairfied by NCORP. If two or more secondary sources have essentially the same cotnent, they either arecopying each other, or a copying the same PR source, or at least are based on it, and even if the original cannot be identified, it's proof of unreliability. I and others have made this argument of many hundreds of afds , and it's never been refuted.
the real problem is that in some fields, unless the subject is truly famous, all available sources are to some extent based on press releases. We haven't fully realized this yet, except in the most obvious examples, like films in some countries. The job of a good press agent consists of getting apparently reliable sources to carry their material. I'm no sure that this can be dealt with by the GNG--either we have to greatly truncate our coverage in many important fields, or we have to base notability on some other criterion. (It has sometimes been said that the fact that secondary sources choose to reprint one particular organization's press releases shows that that organization is notable -- but most industry sources try to accommodate as many firms in the industry as possible, and beyond there it's based mainly on contacts, the most important part of the background necessary to be a good press agent. What it shows is the importance of the particular press agent, and PR people use these placements as their credentials, just as people trying to write paid editing for WP are expected to give references to their other articles ). DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for directing me to WP:NCORP and for the full explanation. Regarding this rule in WP:NCORP:
Examples of dependent coverage that is not sufficient to establish notability:
  • press releases, press kits, or similar public relations materials
  • any material which is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources (churnalism),...
You are saying that this also applies to people or topics, in addition to orgs? --David Tornheim (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
NCORP is not a new guideline--everything there there is basically the GNG sourcing requirements, specialized for companies. The requirement that sources for notability be sources providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements is standard. Companies are such an issue these days that it was necessary to reiterate the rule , with examples. People are a slightly different problem, because of the SNGs. Except for WP:PROF, which is an alternative to the GNG, we have never consistently decided the relationship between them and the SNG. My own position in most cases is that they too should in general be seen as replacements, but that has never really had consensus. I have suggested that often it be handled by interpreting "presumed" in its legal meaning, if it meets that requirements in the SNG, it is notable unless it can be clearly shown otherwise, and it can not be clearly shown otherwise without a comprehensive search in all reasonably likely sources, which is beyond the resources of most people here--and even with the necessary library resources smd languages and skill, it is normally beyond the time available.
But everything I say above is just how I think the guidelines we use can best be interpreted to give what we consider a reasonable result. We most of the time actually use them to justify our views about what an encyclopedia like WP ought to cover, although many people claim not to not realize it. The effective guidelines are made by our decisions. That's why I usually say something like, "it has been our consistent practice that ...." If I argue to change a guideline, it is on the basis that our decisions have changed and the guideline needs to keep up with it. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks from NPP[edit]

NPPbarnstar.jpg

The New Page Patroller's Barnstar

Thanks for your recent work reviewing new articles. Foreign biography articles are often particularly difficult (at least for me), and I saw quite a few of these among your reviews. Thanks and keep up the good work. Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 15:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


Page Deletion of....[edit]

1. You are the obvious sockpuppet of another editor, who was indefinitely blocked for adding advertising material with a promotional username--using an open proxy in both instances. , It has returned without explaining the connection, and have continued to add material which was essentially advertising; this account too has been blocked.
2.The material was added to mainspace despite the conflict of interest, with edits designed to evade our rules requiring use of draft space for new articles by new editors.
3.The material consisted of long sections of advocacy explaining the underlying problems, a long overpersonal account of how the two inventors devised the scheme and their own individual merits, & direct advertising claims about the security and other benefits. This is appropriate for the firm's web page, not an encyclopedia
4.It was sourced almost entirely to the firms own website, PR sites, mere listings, mere announcements of funding, and similar. (Tho some are in Chinese, the online translations make it obvious that everything is copied from their own press releases.)
You are, however, quite correct in your statement that we proceed to remove material of this nature as rapidly as we possibly can.

DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

An amazingly detailed explanation for a spammer. They were on my talkpage too because I CSD tagged the page. Legacypac (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
much of it is very similar to what I've said hundreds of times, so it takes just a few minutes -- and it's here for other people to see it.
I find that an explanation of how I know they're a spammer tends to lower the chance that they'll come back, or try to protest further. .
And I know from comments made to me here and elsewhere that an explanation that makes it clear that I've actually read the article and checked the references is much more effective for both spammers and good faith but inexperienced editors than our usual notices. I only sometimes do this because there are just too many, but we really always ought to. We need to at least give the impression that this site is run by humans. DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018[edit]

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.
Project updates
  • ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
  • There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.

(why is this considered an advertisement?)[edit]

There are the following problems:

  1. The article is addressed to "you"
  2. Overpersonal account of the founding of the company
  3. Referring to people by the first names alone
  4. Repeated use of straight advertising language, eg "... makes international payroll payments faster, cheaper and easier" "in under 24 hours" "helps employees, freelancers and contractors receive their wages all over the world, "
  5. Inclusion of practical details about how to use the service--this belongs on the firm's own web page only.
  6. Inclusion of routine features as if they were something special.

In addition, there are major problems with the referencing:

  1. Using references that merely mention the company as if they had substantial material. Every reference from something that could be seen as a major reliable source is of this nature,
  2. Using references that are straight PR sites, or based on PR, or are mere announcements.

The only likely way of getting an article on Wikipedia is that the company might become so notable that there will be truly substantial, independent and non-promotional sources, and for someone unconnected with the company to want to write about it. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

CoinSwitch[edit]

Hi, thanks for looking into the draft of CoinSwitch. I see that it has been deleted for "G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I'm not very experienced with Wikipedia so I may not have known to avoid certain tones or points of view in order to avoid this, but I did make efforts, to the best of my abilities, to ensure a neutral point of view, while adding numerous citations, from reputed publications, wherever possible. I believe the topic is worthy of a Wikipedia article because of the following reasons:

from my Comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:CoinSwitch 27 Oct 1018
One way of looking at promotionalism is that if the article is suitable for a company web page, it is promotional , not encyclopedic; another is that a promotional article gives the information the company would want to give, rather than the information a reader might want to know; yet another, is providing information that would interest none but present or potential participants or clients. associates. Either way, it's promotional. You may not have intended it as such: the nature of some subjects is that it is difficult to write an article at all without it also having large elements of promotionalism; the world is so full of promotional writing that people naturally write in that style; Wikipedia in particular, has so much promotional content from the earlier years when standards were lower that people assume that's what is wanted here. It will take us a long time tor remove it all, but the least we can do is not add to it.
. Unfortunately, those references that are of high quality seem to talk about various aspects of the industry, not this company specifically. I think that it it is very difficult within our rules to write articles on companies in this industry; there is relatively little distinguishing them which could not equally be seen as promotionalism . The only likely possibilities for articles would be industry leaders in either size, prominence, or historical role--or those which have been the focus of major scandal or regulatory action. Probably at least half of our existing articles in this field were accepted when we had not yet realized the difficulties, and need to be re-examined. As I said earlier, this problem is to some extent common to many industries, especially those dealing with immaterial objects. But the general hype in this particular field makes it perhaps the most difficult.


Editing Team newsletter.[edit]

Recent changes[edit]


Sylvia Spring - "deleted self-serving promotional quotes"[edit]

Hi DGG, I notice that you have edited this article. I have no problem with that, but I do wonder why you described it as "deleting self-serving promotional quotes". I have no connection at all with Sylvia Spring - I had not heard of her before I saw the AfD. I included quotes from her as I thought they were interesting. Perhaps they are not appropriate for the style of Wikipedia - as I have said, I am new here. But they were in no way "self-serving" or "promotional", and your assumption that they were is unfounded, and unnecessary to include in a description of the edits you have done. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

there's a problem with our terminology here: we use promotionalism to include advocacy. Just as it is essentially impossible to write an articles about a consumer product without some degree of promotionalism, it is essentially impossible to write about an advocate without including some degree of advocacy. Anything qwrittene about a good cause has the effect of advocating for it. There is no cut-and-dried solution here--it takes careful writing and rewriting to get the most objective article possible that is still not a mere directory entry. I made a partial attempt towards this, but I am not satisfied with the result.
the comments referred to are ones she made, in an apparent effort to promote her own importance. They are therefore inappropriate in an encyclopedia.We sometimes will include a limited number of such quotes from a famous person; she is notable, not famous. In my opinion there is much more promotional material to be removed--she is an advocate for a cause, and the description of her causes belongs in the subject articles about them. Some of the organization don't have articles--perhaps they can be written. Further, the inclusion within the text of extensive paragraphs of quotations from the reviews is in m opinion not a good idea. The best way to handle these is to but them in the footnotes as part of the citation. I did the minimum I thought necessary, and I hope that you will work on it further. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Kevin[edit]

...What is truly sad is that he died so early; what is particularly unfortunate for WP is that we lost an excellent editor, and a still more excellent organizer and advocate. As I knew him, he was not the sort of person to think all of his work was perfect, any more than I think mine--although what he accomplished in the early days of the education program was much more important to WP than anything I have been able to do here. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


== Request on 18:48:22, 11 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Robhmac ==


Regarding Draft:Erie High School (Pennsylvania) I do not know what else you require for this article stub to be acceptable. I've included THREE external, third-party sources, including the school's official website, the school district's website, as well as the local newspaper article that documents how and when the school was formed by the merger of other high schools. It was never my intention to write a full article, just enough to update all of the other Erie high school pages that imply that they still exist as high schools. However, if I have not provided enough sources, can you give me some more details, such as what else should be added? Thank you so much.

Robhmac (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

If it were up to me it would be acceptable. But the purpose of AfC is to evaluate what the consensus is going to consider acceptable. The current opinion here is that unsourced articles on high schools will be deleted. I have argued against this for many years, and I thought that I had established the principle that high schools would always be considered notable or the purposes of WP. In the last year, the consensus has been otherwise, in spite of the greatest effort to prevent this change that could be made by me and the others who agreed with me. One of the characteristics of the way things work here is that the interpretations of the rules are not fixed, but can change. Nobody here can tell other people here what they must do: there is no such authority, and consequently sometimes not a great deal of stability. there really is no alternative between there being an authoritative top-down decision making and relying on the general agreement ( we could do it by voting--we don't , we do it by a sort of rough consensus.) It would be irresponsible of me to tell you it was OK when I think it likely that this will not be the decision.
How much sourcing is required is however an open question. I suggest that you first check for articles about the school in the local news sources--here ought to be some, especially if there was a period of changes in the organization and consolidation of schools in the district. Then the best approach might be to write a combination article, High schools in.... . I shall certainly support it, and I hope others will also. But the nature of WP is that neither I nor anyone else can make any promises. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom[edit]

I hope you run to be on ArbCom again. Please do. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

At the last minute, I have decided to. The time it takes in relation to the useful work I can do is lower than almost everywhere else on WP, and I have been able to accomplish much less than I might have elsewhere, but perhaps what I have been able to do there has been something that few of the other people on the committee have been inclined to do. Unlike some of the other candidates, I am interested in accomplishing specific things. If people support them enough to elect me I will be pleased that the committee might accomplish something; if people do not support them, then I will have been saved the frustration of uselessly trying, and will be able to redirect my time to other projects here where I know I can be effective. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)...


NPP Review[edit]

Hi DGG! I noticed that you marked the page Google News Lab as patrolled. When I came across it, though, it still had a lot of problems, such as not linking to the page for Google, not including projects on its talk page, not including categories, etc. I'm in the process of fixing those, but I just wanted to open a conversation with you, since it's my understanding that those things are required before a page should be marked as patrolled. You're more experienced at NPP than I am, though, so if there's a rationale behind marking that sort of page as patrolled, feel free to let me know. Sorry if this comes off as accusing you of not being thorough; I'm not trying to do that, but more rather just get a sense of what the norms are in NPP since I'm new to being a patroller. Hopefully that makes sense, and thanks for your thoughts! - Sdkb (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Sdkb, You are correct that I did not really complete this adequately. Here's why: The basic decision I was trying to make, is whether it should be necessary to send it to Draft space for further work; I almost did that, but finally decided that first, it was not just notable, but quite important, and that on a topic of as general interest here as this, it would be more likely to get the necessary improvement in mainspace. I therefore marked it as reviewed, but found it necessary to stop at that point. There's no clear practice on how much tagging is needed at NPP -- I usually do the most critical issue only. I do not usually add categories, for there are a number of people here who specialize in it; uncategorized articles are automatically marked, and they will get the needed work (and because I have considerable disagreement with the way categories are used here, so I think it better not to interfere). I usually do add the basic links--others typically get added later. I normally try to make sure the first sentence at least is clear, and the overall organization reasonably standard. But fundamentally in NPP I am looking for signs that the article shouldn't be here at all, because of promotionalism or lack of notability , or copypaste. These are the things that should not be missed.
The additional work on it you did was correct, and illustrates the way WP manages to work: people here tend to make up for each other's deficiencies.
I should also add that as a teacher, I have found it very effective to make use of my inevitable errors for the purpose of explaining how I came to make them, so that others would learn. I'm therefore always glad to have them pointed out here so I have the opportunity. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, that's all helpful to know! Cheers, Sdkb (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Rachel Parent for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rachel Parent is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

FWIW, I comment at this afd: "as I said in AfD1, "possibly speedy delete G11 as promotionalism. A report of a non notable activist's series of minor interviews" " The article, however, was kept DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

(about teaching paid editors)[edit]

...

2. In principle, we should teach people. This is however not easy. I've taught WP to hundreds of people in classes, and only a few have become regular editors. I've mentored a good number of PR people and others with COI, and I have found it very difficult to get them to write what is wanted, tho there have been a few successes. It is very difficult to really persuade someone that what they want to write about themselves is not what is appropriate here. It is very difficult for even a very good PR editor to get an honest non-promotional article approved by their client. (Several good PR people who have been reasonably good declared paid editors have abandoned this line of their business for that reason). And who will teach them? If I were to do nothing else, I might be able to try to teach 2 or 3 people a day, and I expect the result would be that only one of them will in the end be willing to learn. (In practice, I do 1 or 2 a week) I do not think there are more than 20 people on the English WP who are willing to do even that much. But we get over 1000 promotional articles submitted every day.
3. What I do hope to do , is to persuade people to write general articles about their industry. I and a few others have tried, and we've had some professional associations cooperate with us, and we've had some individual success. (The best example is medicine, where there's an organized effort for this, which is being done quite well. I'm not involved in that one--I prefer to try to work in the fields or aspects that are not yet going well. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


Robert M. Epstein[edit]

I was browsing WP:REFUND and saw that you turned Robert M. Epstein into a live article. As far as I can tell, the entire content of that page, with the exception of some memberships in professional associations, is based on Epstein's own work and words. I am well aware that requirements for secondary sources are, shall we say, relaxed for people who meet WP:PROF, but that seems extreme. Furthermore, much of the content doesn't even seem based on the cited sources or even flat-out misrepresents them (in a way that promotes Epstein). Were you aware of these issues? This is a BLP, after all. Huon (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I did not do it as well as I should have. As you recognize, the membership in the National Academy of Medicine is enough to pass WP:PROF, and in my opinion even a sourced stub saying no more than that would be sufficient for mainspace, though I myself never write anything that sparse. The content needs reliable sourcing, not necessarily independent sourcing. A person's CV is suitable for that. . But you are absolutely right there are some sentences that make claims that are not supported, and I did intend to go back to the article. I removed them now. Thee's one I think could be supported but needs a cite and I marked it. I had meant to remove most of the material about university service, as I usually do; I removed it now. There's a running debate about whether to make improvements beyond those necessary to pass afd indraftspace or in main space; I take an intermediatep position, that they could be done either way. Of course, the danger of doing it in mainspace is that one might forget to go back, or, more likely with me, be diverted into other things,, so I should have done more here. Thanks for reminding me. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
and my difficulty is that in reviewing deleted G13s to see what shouldn't have been deleted, a/I seem to be the only one doing it and b/ there is no single step process for seeing the contents, Both of these get me frustrated every time I do it, so I do get tempted to do it as quickly as possible, which is not always a good thing to do. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Help with explaining NAUTHOR/CREATIVE?[edit]

Hi DGG, I have someone arguing that coverage (ie, reviews) for an author's works doesn't count towards notability for that individual, as that would be the author inheriting notability for the works. I'm going to try to clarify my viewpoints, but I wondered if you would be willing to help as well. I think that since the article was created by one of my students, they may be assuming that I'm making the argument to save their work. (I did spiffy it up by adding the reviews and some tweaks, but I wouldn't move bad work live, of course.) I think hearing it from another person would probably help reassure them. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Of course if you disagree, I totally respect that. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Reviews of their work are the principle thing that count for notability of an author. Ideally, substantial critical reviews from independent reliable sources. Authors do derive notability from their works, just as athletes from their performances, politicians from the office they win. What would possibly make an author notable except publishing notable works? Generally not their personal lives, and what else is there? Even prizes are normally for a particular work, though a few are for a whole career.
The question however is how many works, and what kind of reviews., I consider, and thousands of AfDs have uniformly confirmed, that the consensus here is that two or more notable works is enough .The usual problem comes from an author writing only non-notable works, and here I would be very reluctant to consider notability without very good sources about the author that are more than PR. The other likely dilemma is for an author who whas written a single notable work. A good case can be made forthe article being about the book, or about the author--I do not think it matters much, butI usually prefer the author because the author article has moreo f an opportunity for expansion as almost everyone who succeeds in writing one notable work writes others, but I have always opposed having 2 articles in such cases, unless the author is truly famous; there have been only a few genuine cases.
However, in practice it depends upon the reviews. Borderline significant reviews I do not consider sufficient, by which I mean the brief reviews in Publishers Weekly and the similar. I will look at the specific case later tonight.
And rest assured that if I disagreed with you I would say so. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to soften Jytdog ruling[edit]

Though I am still worried about your opinion of WP:N, thanks for your comment here. There, but for the grace of God, go all of us who care just a bit too much about the Wikipedia. Poor Dog. --GRuban (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

User:ThoughtNoodle[edit]

Hi DGG. Since you mentioned on Jytdog's user talk that you going to try continue on with his efforts with respect to COI/Paid stuff, I wonder what you think about ThoughtNoodle. The contributions do sort of indicate (at least to me) that there might be some undiclosed paid editing going on. The editor has previously denied this before on their user talk, but there lots of overlap and an undeniable connection between the articles they are choosing to edit. FWIW, this is the kind of thing I typically asked Jytdog about to get another opinion before actually interacting with the editor-in-question. However, there's an added bonus in asking you since you are also an admin and therefore any post from you to this editor might carry a little more weight than something from me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Of course the likelihood is being a paid editor, but some of the articles may represent genuine interests of their own. I have never seen the point of repeatedly asking an editor after they deny it. But see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Safari Industries. DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough and thank you for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom[edit]

The spread of votes for the elected and top 2 unelected candidates was very small as compared to past elections. I am going to regard the result as a random fluctuation rather than an indication of anything. . DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Although I am still upset about some of the things, but not seeing you for another term is more upsetting. There is now more establishment than ever, but less, if not non-existent at all, member that are willing to uphold the terms of use on what this project was and should continue to be about. But I suppose more productive work are done on the sidelines. Alex Shih (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Huh. That sucks. You had my vote, for what it's worth. Guy (Help!) 14:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Really sad more so as you had the Second highest number of supports after GorillaWarfare. Tactical voting appears to have done it.Really cannot see any reason to oppose you.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I thank you for re-running and for promoting stricter action on COI issues while you were on ArbCom. I'm sorry you didn't make the top six this time. Perhaps another year. Softlavender (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • 😞 I share the same sentiments as Alex. Atsme✍🏻📧 03:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • ditto the above:( Coolabahapple (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


(a band)[edit]

... as with other bands, there is also the concern that coverage that appears to be secondary might really just be the result of a press release. My sense is when the band is touring, there is a massive amount of monetary outlays promoting the concerts, so differentiating advertising from truly independent coverage is not always so easy. This article on the band's use of social media to promote itself gives a sense of the money involved and major corporate advertising connections needed to go big. Is it just because of talent? I think not. I think it is mostly about money and good PR, something I think both of us are equally concerned about with regard to Wikipedia. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

There are a number of industries built in large part upon hype. In such fields, you are completely right that it is difficult to distinguish NPOV sources from PR. In particular for some genres of music it is impossible to distinguish--what makes a group notable is the publicity it gets, not its actual music. This is true to some extent even in the world in general. PR contributors I trust have told me, what I should have realized myself, that the goals of the best PR is to get genuine news and magazine accounts written about their subject, and that essentially all magazine articles or newspaper features about most topics are to some extent based on PR no matter how high the quality of the source that publishes it.
What I think this means for WP is that for material about organizations & people connected with them & some fields of sports and entertainment, it makes no sense to use the number and type of sourcing for notability, but we must base our inclusion criteria on known or presumed real world importance, and judge it by the most objective means available For content we should consider everything no matter how commercial as a possible source, but judge it for what it is worth (for an example, the words "leading" or 'famous" is unreliable no matter where published. It's just part of the PR boilerplate & if a reputable journalist copies it, they're not being as responsible as they pretend to be.
The difficulty is that this requires the sort of judgment many enWP contributors do not have. The first step in this direction would be an explicit rule, that the extent and detail of an article depends upon the importance within its field, as judged by either objective criteria or by true experts, not upon the number of sources. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I think there are recognized source for film, even new film, and even new film out of the mainstream, but it takes experts in these sub-genres to find them, and I am not. This is much more the case than it was 12 years ago: popular culture of all sorts is an academic field, and academics write books and articles. I have not had time to get back to the NYPL Film division fo do any actual work there for several years now, but we can use the criteria of recognition by experts even in these areas. I'd like to encourage any WPedian who knows and uses academic sources in this field to come forward. But there's another factor, even for critically insignificant art, if it is nonetheless popular enough , we ought to cover it, and here we need people who can judge the various source for popularity. Contrary to WP dogma, popularity is one form of notability -- so is excellence, merit, influence, and recognition. Any of these count in any field. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I am ignorant about the relationship of youtube to the artists they record. Thinking about fields I do know about, there are many cases of major differences between the published version and the authors' preferred version. In discussing them, we need to talk about all released versions, though we need not necessarily link to them. (for major authors & works, we also need to talk about their unpublished manuscript versions) That's what we do with film and books. There are certainly cases where the critically preferred version is, and also where it is not, the authors official version. Art is among other things, meant to sell, and the version that is legally sold can usually assumed to be the basic version or the purpose of discussion. The question of authorial intention is a very difficult one, and I have never subscribed to the critical theory that a work means what the creator says it means, or even what he intends it to mean.
More generally, a WP article about will normally have at least the by-product of promoting the subject it discusses. An article about anything good or interesting in even the most NPOV terms will have a promotional effect. Often , this even extends to subjects where the NPOV view cannot help having have negative implications--some people will still think, bad as it is, it might be interesting. Almost every article here on a book, film, or published music has the effect of promoting it, and the financial benefit will usually go both the creator and the publisher. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 19 – 27 December 2018[edit]

Facto Post – Issue 19 – 27 December 2018
Learning from Zotero

Zotero is free software for reference management by the Center for History and New Media: see Wikipedia:Citing sources with Zotero. It is also an active user community, and has broad-based language support.

Besides the handiness of Zotero's warehousing of personal citation collections, the Zotero translator underlies the citoid service, at work behind the VisualEditor. Metadata from Wikidata can be imported into Zotero; and in the other direction the zotkat tool from the University of Mannheim allows Zotero bibliographies to be exported to Wikidata, by item creation. With an extra feature to add statements, that route could lead to much development of the focus list (P5008) tagging on Wikidata, by WikiProjects.

Zotero demo video

There is also a large-scale encyclopedic dimension here. The construction of Zotero translators is one facet of Web scraping that has a strong community and open source basis. In that it resembles the less formal mix'n'match import community, and growing networks around other approaches that can integrate datasets into Wikidata, such as the use of OpenRefine.

Links

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Documentation
Thank you for providing the most directly informative user page that I have seen so far. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Driving to Geronimo's Grave[edit]

I don't understand your objection to pick me publishing and article about a collection of stories written by an author who has been working in the field over 40 years and has won numerous awards over his long career. Maybe if you learned a little bit about this guy, you wouldn't think his books were not worthy of articles on Wikipedia. I mean what do you want me to do? Read and comment and spoil each novella? There's nothing that pisses me off more than an editor that gives a 2 paragraph synopsis of what happens in a book to have the entire work ruined. I don't publish high school level book reports! If that has come down to doing that just to get my article published, then I'm done as an editor.PKDASD 21:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

If you were going to write about the individual stories, yes you would have to give a very brief precis of the entire plot, including the ending. See WP:SPOILER. Everyone should realize by now that WP includes complete plots, and if they don't want to know the ending, they shouldn't come here. We're an encyclopedia , not a place to publish teasers. But I see no evidence that this particular collection is notable enough to have a WP article about it at all.
Are the individual stories notable? Have people written extensive critical commentary about any or all of them? Have any of them won an award individually? If so, they could each have an article. If these individual stories are not notable, but the overall work in that format is, which is probably the case, there would be reason for a collected article about his short stories, where each of them is described in a paragraph--this is one of the options at WP:GNG. Is this particular collection of stories notable as a collection? Is there substantial reviews of this particular collection? Did this particular collection win an award ? If it did, add that information and there can be an article.
The fact that an author is notable, does not make each of their individual works notable, much less each individual reprinted selection of them. If an author is very notable, then we can justify a separate article about each major novel, but only if an author is actually famous, which usually means Nobel prize calibre, then we probably could have articles about each of their individual works, down to each short story; but even then we usually do not go to that level except for the best known and most published-about stories. And even then we don't list particular selected works as separate articles. We haven't even done that for Shakespeare--we do justify articles for each play and each sonnets, but that's because multiple critical work has been published about each. We could probably justify articles about some of the most famous collected editions, which have been similarly discussed. But we do not even for him make a separate article for each volume containing a selection of his plays or a selection of the poems.
There may be some existing articles here at this level about Lansdale's minor works or collections similar to this one. When I have no higher priority, I will probably challenge them. I'm not going to challenge articles about his major novels--nobody would do that. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


Re 'Trans Tryer'[edit]

Hello, DGG. Recently you wrote about a draft I created with this name. Briefly: I recently read a news item which stated that WP had a new agreement with Google Translate. Because I read that, and am an optimist, I hoped that WP had created a new, automated 'mechanism'. Fooled again.

While I was exploring that, hoping to decipher where/how this might work (after, for the last time, struggling through WP's abysmal writeup on translation) ... I created a draft container. I gave it that throwaway name to do the experiment.

A machine translation is sometimes adequate to get a decent article stubbed. It's more valuable to get the translation into a visible page, thereby gaining an audience and opening an editing field for people who may not be expert editors, but may very well be very familiar with the subject-matter. As far as I could figure out, the news release was complete BS.

I do not wish to have anything to do with using Google directly. I consider their translations to be mostly shitty (as in: why do they even bother), but they are helpful in gathering facts that are helpful for research ... names, dates, places, etc. I've used that tactic several times in the past.

I will bother only with: 1) WP will take my request for a Google translation, ship that off to Google, and 2) pick up the result and drop it into my user-box. I'll take it from there. I'd be VERY glad to take advantage of such automation to improve many existing English articles about Europeans.

I'm not interested in wasting time on process (unlike many editors) ... I want to do research and create quality writeups, not turn endless cranks. So since I'm done, if you want to translate the article, that'd be great. Thanks for asking, and if/when WP gets its act together, if I'm still alive, I'll be thrilled. Twang (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Most people at the English Wikipedia fully share your skepticism. The use of the WP translate feature , whether with or without G Translate, is in fact not authorized here except for experienced users. As I mentioned, I do some translations of straightforward articles from frWP, and I never use it--I test it from time to time to see if it has gotten any better, but l tried a few days ago, & threw out the result and started over. The use of GTranslate as a starting point is sometimes helpful. How close it comes depends on the subject and the language, and I have never seen a translation from it that doesn't need revision--usually substantial revision. (I really do not see why machine translation can not automatically substitute it for she when referring to inanimate objects in Spanish, for example, or know to use the past tense for past events) But it's a help sometimes, like a dictionary. The actually difficult factor in doing translations is not as much language skills, as cultural and subject knowledge. The institutions mentioned need to be specified so they will be understood--the terms of art used properly--the historical events & the geography put in context.
There's a lot of machinery here that most people ignore, and only a few specialists bother with. As you realize, you don't have to know things like categories or reference format to write articles. All that is necessary is to get the article right and see that it is referenced clearly enough in any format so that some of the many people who do like to check such things can adjust the details. So I very strongly urge you to do just that: use the other language's article for information, and write an equivalent. it doesn't even have to be a translation, just an equivalent, with more or less detail as appropriate, and even a start at one that makes an understandable stub is helpful DGG ( talk ) 08:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Linda Gottfredson[edit]

Hello DGG,

Recently you contributed to the Talk:Linda Gottfredson [24] page and shared some helpful insights. As it stands, there are five editors in consensus over the proposed changes, and only one against. I wanted to reach out to you directly to see if you would, at this point, be willing to enact the changes. If not, I'd appreciate any advice you could offer regarding the next step forward.

Thanks for your assistance, 2601:42:800:A9DB:C552:99A0:180E:B293 (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

perhaps you would specify the changes you would like to make. Alternatively, make them , and let me know, and I will go there and comment, DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey DGG -- The proposed changes were noted on the Gottfredson page, and I see you largely agreed with them. However, one person as expected still vehemently disagrees. Do you believe it's fair to proceed with the changes since the consensus appears to be in agreement? Thanks once again for your insight. 2601:42:800:A9DB:155D:A6E0:AB26:C927 (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I will comment, but I cannot impose my own view of what is the correct version. No single admin can do that, though an uninvolved single admin can summarize a dispute. I will however, make some suggestions for going forward forward, including additional people to ask. .
But , having read the material, I am no longer an uninvolved administrator. I now have a definite view on the subject, which is that her published work is in no way racist . . All I can therefore do is argue for it, like any other editor. This is why I do not act as an admin in fields where I are very much about personally--and for the ones I really personally care strongly about, I will usually not even edit, for I do not like to get involved in the usual WP cross-exchanges about who of the various people with strong opinions is the most biased. I could have chosen otherwise, and used my skills in understanding scientific material and constructing effective arguments according to any arbitrary set of rules (even such as those used in WP) to try to bring important WP articles to express what I think a fair view of the subject. Some early experiences here have left me with the impression that anyone trying to give a fair view of a controversial subject will be subject to abuse from both sides and is unlikely to make progress.
I've therefore preferred to work in other aspects- , rescuing poor but improvable articles in any field I know enough to do so, and trying, conversely, to keep advertising and self-promotion out of Wikipedia.these are things I can do with needing to have an opinion on the subject. That I'm going to get involved in the argument here is one of my rare exceptions. I do need to ask you a question about conflict of interest--you can do this best by emailing me. in confidence. I'm still bound by the proises of confidentiality I undertook as an arbitrator. DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
In case your inquiry is in regards to my possible affiliation with Gottfredson, allow me to answer preemptively: I have absolutely no affiliation with Gottfredson; I don’t know her in person, nor am I being compensated in any manner for editing her article. My interest in her article is a product of my observance of the misrepresentation of her and others in controversial fields, and I’ve edited a few other articles on similar topics.
Should you have any further questions, or if this wasn’t relevant to what you were going to ask, I’m once again more than willing to answer via e-mail or on this page. However, if this answer puts you at ease, I’d like to redirect you back to the article at hand — Do you think we have enough of a consensus to proceed with the proposed changes? If not, I’d appreciate your experienced input regarding what our course of action should be. 2601:42:800:A9DB:F986:3B6F:D612:B874 (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
See above about uninvolved--I want confirmation. . I am asking two very sensible editors whom I really trust to say what they think without necessarily agreeing with me : Bri, atsme . DGG ( talk ) 07:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
From my perspective, DGG is involved; therefore, any edits he makes or opinions he expresses will not be in his capacity as an admin. Regarding the potential of a COI involving the IP, my initial thoughts are to WP:AGF, and accept his public denial of a COI in his paragraph above. Since local consensus agrees with what the IP recommended, I'm of the mind that an informal summary of those arguments would suffice as support for a BRD edit. If the opposing editor objects, then a formal RfC should be called. I will also add an excerpt from what I consider to be an enlightening discussion which may have some relevance here. I keep it displayed at the top of my user TP under the title "To include it in a BLP or not?": A person's biography is not a good place to debate scientific theory or ideological beliefs; such debates belong in the articles that focus on those topics. For BLPs, it is enough to simply state what their views are and link to the articles which expand on those views. (quote by Zaereth edited for brevity; Jimbo Wales agreed.) Hope that helps. Atsme✍🏻📧 11:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Atsme, I really appreciate the response, and agree with your referenced quote -- This line of thinking is what drives me to assist biography pages which have been written unfairly due to ideological bias.
With that said, DGG, do you intend to make the edit(s) based on the proposed changes, or would you rather another trusted member weigh in before we proceed? Thanks once again, 2601:42:800:A9DB:ECC0:551B:9183:5CD6 (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I was waiting for the conclusion of Amendment request: Race and intelligence, [25], because the issues there are closely related, I take the result to mean that the majority of the present arb com is in agreement with my view of it, though, there also, at least one person is not. But you will notice Atsme's point, that this will probably lead to a formal RfC , in which case everything will have to be disputed here yet again. The result will be, as always, unpredictable. If so, I will probably feel that I have to comment in it, and this is a topic I very emphatically do not want to work on at Wikipedia. I shall do what I think the minimum necessary. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
That makes sense. Do you happen to know when a decision will be rendered on that case? 2601:42:800:A9DB:F0B3:BBB1:C14B:1097 (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
this issue is not going to be finally resolved for a long time. As I have said, I don't intend to follow it. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I was referring to the specific amendment request you linked — when do you believe that will be finalized? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:800:A9DB:F0B3:BBB1:C14B:1097 (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
DGG, I’ve noticed the amendment request you linked has finalized and a positive decision rendered. Though I don’t want to appear overbearing, I did want to know if, as a result, you were going to implement the aforementioned changes to the Gottfredson article. I do understand your voiced reluctance to edit articles for which you hold a strong opinion, so if you’d rather not participate, that’s fine. However, in that case, I will be implementing the changes myself over the next few days. Thanks once again for your input. 2601:42:800:A9DB:A935:EBC7:C736:8F74 (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment about revising promotional articles, from a user talk p.[edit]

But this further explains my dissatisfaction with negotiating articles with coi editors. I can revise an article till I think it acceptable, and fair, and informatively describes the subject. . What I can not do and will not do, is revise an article so if makes a more effective presentation of the subject. Presenting the subject effectively the way they would want to be presented, is the job of PR, and a perfectly respectable thing to do--elsewhere. I will not help anyone do it here, and to the extent I edit, I will reduce the article to documented informative material: forsome relevant examples, if a person's books and awards are listed once, it provides the needed information, and there is no need to list them twice over. If reviews are cited, there's no reason to pick our the favorable bits. If someone's avocational interests unrelated to notability are mentioned and linked to a source for further information, there's no need to explain them further. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

NYU faculty articles[edit]

Hello, I looked over Marisa Carrasco, changed "Publications" to "References" and removed the tags per the talk page comments. The references on the article, and the many not there, are enough to show notability. As noted if there are continuing neutrality concerns they can be addressed on the talk page. Many times I tag or leave comments on article talk pages, in attempts to not be a "drive-by tagger", with plans to revisit. It is made easier when there are comments of substance. Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no concerns about her notability, because WP:PROF relies on impact, which in the sciences is measured by quotations to her publications, and the GNG and its baroque ramifications are usually irrelevant. Her citation record does show that, and I'll add them. (somebody should have already, but this is WP). There is nothing wrong with calling attention to WP:PROF articles which may imply notability , but do not show it. Most of the time the ones that need deletion for lack of notability by WP:PROF are also highly promotional, so it is rational to check carefully everything done by a promotional editor. And of course there's a degree of blatant advertising where TNT is applicable, I try to balance that factor with notability, because it is impractical to devote the time to fixing the articles where notability is just borderline. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019[edit]

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

}}


New York Public Library for the Performing Arts[edit]

Hello DGG. At outreach:Wikipedian in Residence your Wikimedian in Residence project at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts still has the information "under construction" as project page. Could you please link to the project page at outreach so that everyone interested can learn about your project? Thank you so much, --Gereon K. (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

actually, I haven't been doing it for several years now,and I'm not sure whether or not I will be able to return. DGG ( talk ) 10:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, yes, but I think it would be nice if the Wikimedian in Residence list on outreach would contain a link to the project (no matter if it's up to date or from 2012), so that interested readers could learn about the project. --Gereon K. (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


Academic publisher "monitoring"[edit]

Do you know if there's anywhere, e.g. a wikiproject, where data are collected on publishers that are cited on Wikipedia with citation templates? Having run across this citation, where Springer Publishing was listed as the publisher of something from Springer Nature, and having made the same mistake myself plenty of times (e.g. spending time seeking Publishing books at link.springer.com), I wonder if there's anywhere that could be used to find likely errors of this sort. Not computer-processable, of course, but a human could look at a list of pages citing Springer Publishing titles and identify topics, like this one, that don't have anything to do with their fields.

Also, do you know if there's a way to look up matches between URLs and publisher names in citation templates? The first diff made me wonder about finding such issues elsewhere, and here I changed a publisher from Publishing to Nature. It would be interesting to see how many articles list Springer Publishing as the publisher for items on springer.com, or list Springer Nature as the publisher for things on springerpub.com.

Thanks for your assistance! Nyttend (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


Nyttend, As you have probably guessed, this is complicated on multiple levels. .
First of all , for journals it is not usually necessary to specify the name of the publisher even in print citations l. The title is enough 95% of the time, and the usual distinction if it is not is the city of publication, and if more is needed, the dates. There are exceptions, such as when it is necessary to distinguish the publisher to indicate the degree of importance. Usually that's not reaally needed, because the name ofthe journal gives that information to those who know thesubject, but itcan be helpful--especially nowadays with predatory publishers who use titles that deliberately sound very similar to those of major journals.
This is different from books, where the name of the publisher is the key independence of reliability, and must always be included. (the place usually not, because most book publishers cooperate in several countries--it's only really need for ones that will not be recognized.. There are two questions --who actually published it, and what form of the name to use.
When one does give the name, a person is supposed to cite is what is on the item they actually use; this is not necessarily what will be on a formal record, nor will it necessarily correspond to the actual facts of production. In traditional publications, the copyeditor normalizes the citations according to house style, and what they will do with the publisher field varies--each firm has its own conventions. What you are suggesting is that we normalize it similarly. The copyeditor, or ourselves, would necessarily depend upon the library cataloging, but library cataloging has its own conventions, and these have changed radically over time and differ between countries , and do not except for rare books even attempt to be an exact record--in practice, for books, they copy what is on the item in front of them. For journals, title changes and publisher changes are common, and for both the rules are extremely complicated, being designed to cover all possible situations, and have changed with time, and vary with countries. For example, the 19th century practice was the opposite of today, to give the place always, but often not the publisher.
For the example example you gave, the original ed. and you both made errors. The original ed. didn't realize this was not the main Springer, but a separate and less important company. You made an error, for the citation in from 2009, and in 2009 there was no such firm as Springer Nature. The OCLC record lists it as Springer, so you need to change it back. [26]. OCLC and LXC doesnot usual between various forms of the corporate name.
For both journals and books, publishers change their names, or change the names of their sub-divisions (usually called imprints).They often merge and sometimes split; when this happens, sometimes the name changing to the firm that purchased another, but sometimes not and sometimes only after a period of years. They sometimes merge partially, when one publisher will sell one of its subdivisions or subject areas to another, and what happens to the name on the item similarly varies. Sometimes one publisher reprints work of another. Sometimes the responsibility for publication is divided between different publishers in all sorts of manners. Sometimes an item has different publishers in different countries. Sometimes the print and online have different publishers. Publishers have divisions i different countries, and sometimes they are in effect the same company and sometimes they are very different, as between OUP and OUP India, and this too can very with time. Often when a book is reprinted after the publisher merges, the name given will be the new publisher, but usually the new name will simply be added along with the new copyright date.
There's a problem with authority. OCLC merges the records for different versions and libraries. LC catalogs what they consider to be the version of record, but many libraries modify their copy of the record. For books other than rare books, different editions are separated, but not different printings. (In US practice, a new edition is where the contents changes, either in the main body of the text or the addition of a preface; a printing is where it doesn't. The practical distinction is whether the number of pages changes. A new copyright date is not necessarily a new ed. , because the use of revised date for each new printing if there is even a trivial difference extends the copyright the publishers will claim.) So if you take out a book from a library or buy it, the publisher on the item may be different from the publisher on the cataloging record, depending on when you or the library bought it. As a further complication, a e-print is usually just a printing variant, but since it is hard to tell, some libraries will list it separately. OCLC tries to distinguish, but in practice they mixit up in a totally irrational and unpredictable way.
Sometime an author (WP or conventional) will actually have seen the item, sometime they will copy the citation from that given in another publication; sometimes (especially in WP) they will copy it from a database. Sometimes they will have seen one form of the item, but copy the citation given in a database or catalog for a different form. Sometimes the version they have seen is an illegitimate republication that should not ordinarily be cited, but for which a genuine version is available. Sometimes they see a translation and cite the original, or do just the opposite. Often in WP they fill in the cite form wrong, listing a publisher as author , or a reprinter as publisher, or omitting one or another. Sometimes the WP rules even require that we cite an unauthentic version, such as an open access preprint, rather than the paywalled version of record.
The most important thing we need to fix in WP is to add online or print when only one is given, and to link to both the publishers version and , if available, a open access version. I believe there is in fact a project running to add the open access links. Correcting other variations, is something that affects not individual records, but all of the various WPs, and I suggest is something best left to Wikidata. At the moment, I think they are just working on journals, bjt anyone could add or elaborate a record for a book. I do not myself usually doit, for it will be most efficient as an organized exercise. In the past , I would not personally work with Wikidata, because I considered their standards too low. Now, their goals at least are higher, and the WD people now appreciate the bibliographic and semantic ambiguities. Just like WP is a long term project, so is WD., and though I would possibly now be able to cooperate with them, I am quite occupied enough here. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

(political editing)[edit]

... We have to be mindful of the consequences of treating political article talk pages as free speech zones in service of righting great wrongs. If the goal of an encyclopedia is to contain the sum of all human knowledge, proportionally reflecting reliable sources, then I see this approach as being highly detrimental to that purpose. - MrX 🖋 12:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

It is acceptable for an editor to challenge sources, even the NYT, or to argue for the use of even such sources as Breitbart. What is not acceptable to be a nuisance about it,. It is not acceptable to refuse to accept consensus, even if you are certain the consensus is wrong. I have read all the diffs, and what I actually think of the sources myself is not to the point here--I have said all of that in more detail at various times at WP:RSN and elsewhere, but it's a separate matter.

...

I have discussed the need for absolutely neutral leads repeatedly, from my first years here, using the example that we need not call Stalin a tyrant. We say what he did, and the reader will draw the conclusions. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
But I certainly agree with your last paragraph, that we should not treat article talk pages as zones for political debate. She is not the only one who has done that. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

News release tag[edit]

Dear DGG: You put a news release tag on Ned Holstein. Could you expand on your rationale? As a scientist, my biography articles are mostly about other scientists (people I have never met or dead), describing their education, a synthesis of their research, their media appearances, together with a list of selected publications; trying to do so in a stimulating, friendly and positive manner. This is about an activist though, so it is a little different than what I normally do. I tried to describe his education, his organizational affiliations, a synthesis of the advocacy arguments he uses, and his media appearances, together with a list of selected publications. How could I do this better? I want to use the sources to relay the content and logic of the advocacy, which is the core of the notability and corresponding to the research done by a scientist. To simply create a dry tally of events, activities and personal anecdotes that some Wikipedia biographies have is less informative for the reader. Any suggestions on how to move forward on these types of activist biographies? Martinogk (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

That's exactly the point. WP is not a place to do advocacy. It's an encyclopedia, and you used the same words I sometimes do in advising people how to write here: encyclopedias are inherently dry and dull. They can also be fascinating, as a framework to find out a little about a great many things. To find out a great deal, that's why we have references. But in a more positive way, the method of handling people who are known for their advocacy is to say what others have said about it, and to say it briefly, and do as much as possible of it by implication, giving titles of works and the like. (I also notice that at least half of the sources given for "Media Interviews" merely include him in a small part of a long general story; including these gives a promotional effect--and also affects notability.) The article is not supposed to be built up of quotations from his works, but by describing them. The place to use quotations, is where there is something distinctive, or where the exact wording matters. The rule for promotionalism in general ,is that we say not what the person would want others to know about him, but what others might want to know. It must be based not on his work, on what is said about his work, and there are unfavorable ones also, they must be included. It should not be written to give the impression that everyone would naturally agree-- I notice that some of the coverage of him, and some of the places where he has published, are publications that are generally considered not to be reliable sources, with WorldNet Daily as the most notorious; that he would choose to publish there implies that some aspects of his work may not be as uncontroversial as they sound.
And I can't help noticing that some of this affects some of your other articles, both those specifically on advocacy groups for shared parenting, and those on scientists who are associated with that movement. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


Administrators' newsletter – March 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
  • *checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

-

NPR Newsletter No.17[edit]


NPP Tools Report
  • Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
  • copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

(Indian sources)[edit]

... In this specific case, an additional concern was that Indian women tend to bring up less sources from a web search than subjects in the west. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

You are right that that local papers are available from the US, but not India. However, when they get national coverage, that might be quite sufficient, if the coverage were independent instead of PR. The problem for the ones we see here is the irresponsibility of many Indian sources. (and many US etc. sources as well, of course, but there's more likely to be something real) DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
SYSTEMATICBIAS does not remotely apply for any Indian (woman) CEO, operating from a posh business area, in the 21st century. Just no. And, it's quite untrue that local Indian papers are not available over web; every major vernacular daily has an online presence and their archives date back at-least to the 2000s. Some even have digitized stuff till the 1960s.
That being said, you cannot view local newspaper articles of the 1800s over web and that's a hindrance to ours' judging notability of characters of those time spans. There is a major ongoing project to digitize old newspapers (whose publishers have shut their shop, long back) but it's way too slow and fund-crunched. Still, archives of yester-century's leading vernacular newspapers like Amrita Bazar Patrika, Jugantar et al are slowly made available for free viewing and searching.WBGconverse 19:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm very glad to hear the increasing availability of sources. It might be useful to compile or identify a guide to them, and how to locate them. There's of course also the problem of translation--GT is not at its best with Hindi, but seems borderline usable; I have no idea how it handles other Indic languages. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


Administrators' newsletter – April 2019[edit]

  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.


A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Good advice on the additional footnotes needed; thanks Sf360mk (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago[edit]

Awesome
Cscr-featured.svg
Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


NPR Newsletter No.18[edit]

Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Discussions of interest

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png This [27] page misled me, too. Authors and readers can go overboard promoting a book. But what I came here to say is that this is why I enjoy interacting with you. Your rational approach to evidence is deeply cheering. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
+1 Atsme Talk 📧 18:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)



Administrators' newsletter – June 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous


Stop moving articles to Draftspace[edit]

This is not a helpful activity. You are harming the encyclopedia and irritating veteran editors by doing this. There is minimal harm in allowing in-progress new articles to be worked on in the main article space. In some cases you have broken active links by moving existing articles from mainspace into draftspace. I don't know why this policy even exists — Wikipedia is NOT PAPER. It does not matter if there are articles that are less than notable, so long as they are eventually deleted or (preferably) improved. Please stop doing this. It is anti-social behavior and discourages contribution. I've looked over your contribution history and (at least recently) is seems to mostly consist of undoing the efforts of other editors. This must stop. --Wclark (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICTED:
I'm sorry — this isn't your fault. You're following policy. It's the policy that's at fault, here. There's no good reason to ever delete articles, in my opinion. They don't harm anything by existing. Who cares if people write overly-positive vanity articles about private businesses, as long as they're properly sourced and halfway decent? Let the spammers create articles to their heart's content... we just need to be diligent about how we link to them. If something is legitimately mentioned in some article, I'd expect there to be an article on it. Worry about how facts are cited in existing articles, not which ones merely exist. Deleting/Renaming/Needlessly-screwing-with articles that somebody else is working on — even if they exist in the main namespace — just creates entirely avoidable conflict for no good reason. So long as links within articles are relevant, there's no real problem with allowing even the spammiest of articles to exist. Fix them (if they actually start to get traffic/links — which in and of itself indicates some measure of notability, by the way) but don't go through some rename-to-draftspace/delete convoluted approval process. --Wclark (talk) 05:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I do this to rescue and improve articles, not to delete them. When I think the subject is probably notable, but the references are not sufficient, I move the articles to draft as an alternative to nominating them for deletion, under the provisions of alternatives to deletion in WP:Deletion policy. All that anyone needs to do is to add the necessary additional references, and submit it for returning to mainspace. (It's also possible to add the references and return it outside of the drafts process, but that loses the opportunity for review.) If the references are sufficient for notability, neither I nor anyone else is likely to list it for deletion. The article will be improved, and WP will be the gainer.
It is of course technically possible to revert my moves if you disagree, even without adding references. If that is done, I will check it myself, and if I do not think there are sufficient refereneces, I will probably list it for deletion, and the community will decide. Even after such a nomination, it can still be rescued by adding references.
In earlier years, before we had Draftspace, this alternative was not available, and so many articles got deleted that need not have been. I'm very glad the procedure exists, and I use it whenever possible, because my purpose since coming here 12 years ago has consistently been to keep and rescue every article that is possible to be kept. I've rescued thousands. Ideally, it would be better if I could source them all myself, but that's beyond what one person can do; at least this starts the process of getting them sourced.
There's probably some specific article you have in mind, so I'll look at it tomorrow. . DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
It seems like we probably agree on some deeper level here, but maybe not about how best to implement things toward that goal. Fair enough; my complaint isn't with you. Cheers, --Wclark (talk) 05:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Wclark, checking, it seems there is a larger and somewhat different problem than I thought. Most of what I have been moving the last few days has been a group ofarticles from an improperly organized WP educational program class, whose students have ben moving or copying their own articles from draft to WP space, apparently without review from the instructor. This has caused a number of problems--it's thoroughly messed up the cross references structure -- as you noticed-- , it's created duplicate or near duplicate undeleted drafts and article, and most of their articles were unencyclopedic essays, not encyclopedia articles, with the typical unsourced opinion appropriate to school essays. Clearing this upwill be long and complicated, and I will try to do it this weekend. Since, as is generally the case with classes, the students are unlikely to return to respond to messages once they have finished the course, the drafts are very unlikely to be improved. The only thing I can think of doing is trying to rewrite myself as many of them as possible as stubs, and then move them properly to mainspace. Snf ythen try to find all the erroneous links. This has happened before, but usually the articles/drafts have been so poor that they can simply be deleted, but most of these can be rescued. Despite years of effort, there is no real way of making sure the people in a class project follow the instructions. And just as anyone can edit, anyone can run a class sometimes without even telling us. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


Request on 17:42:34, 16 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by RecordAR: Arizona_Center_for_Education_and_Research_on_Therapeutics}[edit]


Hello. Thank you for your assistance. I would like to properly revise this article.

1. You are correct that AZCERT focuses solely on heart arrhythmia caused by drug interactions; the mission of the organization is to reduce fatalities. This is a *huge* medical problem that involves hundreds of prescription medications. Does the organization need a wider focus to be considered relevant? JDRF focuses solely on juvenile diabetes. Just trying to understand.

2. Would these resources help establish the organization's credibility? Most are medical resources because it is a medical issue. https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/704202_3 https://secure.medicalletter.org/w1509a https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1767957/ https://www.uspharmacist.com/article/medication-induced-qt-interval-prolongation-and-torsades-de-pointes https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/medialibraries/urmcmedia/medicine/palliative-care/patientcare/documents/methadoneandqtcprolongation.pdf https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/744382/qtc-interval-screening-methadone-treatment https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/PUArticles/DrugInducedQTProlongation.htm

Again, thank you very much. I am trying to get it right.

RecordAR (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)RecordAR

RecordAR (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing Oleson[edit]

Did you have any comments on the article? How it can be improved? Anything that bothered you? I gather from your profile that you have a strong academic background so welcome your comments on an academic’s bio. (Hope to add a talk page to the article when I have some time IRL.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you![edit]

Dobos cake (Gerbeaud Confectionery Budapest Hungary).jpg 7&6=thirteen () has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen () 12:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


Draft:YEET[edit]

Philosophically, do you think repeatedly deleted drafts should be salted? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

If it clear that an article cannot be written on the topic, or if the various versions are all of them advertising, I usually semi-protect after 2 or 3 times. But for the one you have in mind, Draft:History of Yeet, the current draft is significantly different from the previous versions, and if it can be sourced it might conceivably become an article. One of the deletions was a one-line stub, one here, and one or or 2 of the variants were where the term was used as a BLP violation. The most recent was similar to the present in content, but written in Wiktionary format, and belonged in Wiktionary .Since the term is in widely used--even someone like myself has seen it multiple times--, I wouldn't say it's impossible. DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Jenny Brown[edit]

Hi DGG. Please review my comment for you on Talk:Jenny Brown (feminist).--Elindstr (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Submission declined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Marina_Anca[edit]

Hi DGG,

You declined an article I submitted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Marina_Anca

I chatted with ToBeFree in the wiki chat room and he/she thought the English was understandable.

I am a native English speaker, so I'm trying to understand what I need to change to have this article accepted. Can you please advise. Thank you.

Mr. Promise (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: I'm not a native speaker and I didn't review the draft's sources. The text appears to be understandable, but there may be something specific you're referring to. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to get an understanding on what I need to change to get the article accepted, so any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Mr. Promise (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi DGG, I'm still awaiting your response so I can change my article so that I can have it accepted for publication. Thank you. Mr. Promise (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Promise (talkcontribs) 21:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC) Mr. Promise (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago[edit]

Awesome
Cscr-featured.svg
Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:CEN is now open![edit]

To all interested parties: Now that it has a proper shortcut, the current events noticeboard has now officially opened for discussion!

Thank you for your participation in the RFC, and I hope to see you at WP:CEN soon! –MJLTalk 17:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello DGG,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.


Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

the WMF/enWP crisis[edit]

Please note that all responses are likely to be delayed during the crisis at Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram. Unlke some of the admins I know and like best, I'm not resigning my adminship or leaving WP, but I find it discouraging to work under the profound contempt for the community by those who think they are in charge, combined with their incompetence at what they are trying to do. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

fwiw, I consider the WMF statements as reasonably satisfactory--except that they still think arb com is not suitable for the full text of the confidential material. (so after 3 or 3 days of inactivity, I'm back.) DGG ( talk ) 08:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


List of IEEE Fellows[edit]

Hello DGG,

I hope you are doing well. I am writing to you because I saw that you reviewed my article List of IEEE Fellows. Another editor has suggested that Wikipedia doesn't really need a page like this since most of the fellows actually don't have their own page. I do agree with their point to some extent, but the notability guideline for academics says that all IEEE Fellows are notable. Even though most don't have their standalone articles right now, they might in the future. What do you think? Should I continue creating the lists or should I delete the ones that I have made? You can see the other editor's point of view on my talk page.HRShami (talk) 05:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

My own view is that since all IEEE fellows are ntoable, the llist serves also to indicate the many articles needed. We have done similar lists in many other subjects with good effect. Such lists have on occassion be challenged at AfD, and results vary-- consensus at WP is always a little unpredictable. If it is challenged, let me know, and I will comment. What would help the most is if you added some information to the items in list format--birth and death, date of election, and it possible workplace and specialty. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
That's my point of view too. A list will highlight all the articles we need to make and we can start working on them. Can you please take a look at this List of fellows of IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Society and let me know what you think? I am adding the year of election, citation and name. When you say date of election, do you mean the date or the year? Birth and death would be a little difficult to find. In my own experience, even after thorough research on a subject, I am mostly not able to find their birth date. I will try to find the workplace they were working at when they were nominated and add it to the list for each fellow. HRShami (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
If they elect more than once a year, and you can find the exact date use it; if it is going to be difficult, year is enough--the idea is to give some idea of years of greatest activity. Over time, we'll accumulate birth date and --eventually-- death dates -- these are important identifiers and will tie into Wikidata and to the ongoing efforts to build a database of references to all scientific publications-- from those we'll eventually be able to get brief bios. Once you've got this going, the next step is to learn how to enter what you have into Wikidata. I unfortunatley don't have time to work there myself, but I can guide you to the experts in this. DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I will get more details about how many times fellows are elected in a year. Wikidata sounds interesting. I would love to learn how to work there. I think it would be better if I add data for the birth and death dates to Wikidata of each specific person, instead of adding them to the list page. Please put me in touch with someone who can help me with Wikidata. HRShami (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


A kitten for you![edit]

Cute grey kitten.jpg

Just because

--EEMIV (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


Topic ban?[edit]

Do I read it correctly that you handed out a topic ban to me for the Flyingd-dispute? The Banner talk 10:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@The Banner: If I understand correctly, he is trying to say you are subject to the editing restrictions that a topic ban entails, but the scope of the restrictions is limited to List of airliner shootdown incidents (and not its talk page).
I'm here because I'm, frankly, somewhat baffled by your decision. Ignoring the bizarre suggestion that we do the opposite of Dutch Wikipedia so that both courses are implemented somewhere (which I suspect you knew was bizarre), I'm confused by the sanctions themselves. I won't question the topic ban for Flyingd, which may have been necessary and was, I think, within your discretion as closer. However, I feel I should challenge your topic ban of Robotje: even in the ANI, nobody ever suggested that Robotje's conduct was problematic, much less that it merited sanctions. I don't really know how sanctions work, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge, you can't impose topic bans without community consensus unless there are active arbitration remedies (discretionary sanctions), and there was no such consensus here. Consequently, I fail to see how you can topic ban him, especially without providing any explanation for why, as if the discussion made it plainly obvious.
I'm also confused by your rationale for the topic ban of The Banner, in particular the suggestion that he might think he's not a participant in the dispute. The Banner's own behavior and statements do not, that I can see, lend themselves to such a conclusion, and a scan of Talk:List of airliner shootdown incidents shows plainly that he's involved. In fact, he's more involved in the dispute itself than Robotje is; he merely disappeared when I asserted in the ANI thread that his behavior was more problematic than Flyingd's, making Robotje the only one left who believed that Flyingd's behavior merited sanctions. Apparently, The Banner did not disappear entirely, although his activity did drop substantially after my post, leaving Robotje far more important to the discussion than he had previously been. I don't think it's fair that Robotje received much harsher sanctions merely, that I can see, because he was the one posting regularly in ANI.
Ultimately, because your findings were so odd, I'm not convinced you actually diligently read the ANI discussion. If you did, I respectfully ask that you clarify your reasoning for the sanctions you chose. Otherwise, I respectfully ask that you reconsider your closure. Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
In fact, I took a step back out out of self-protection due to health-reasons. The Banner talk 14:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
My suggestion was perhaps a little ironic: it was intended to emphasise was what I had said just before, that whichever way we did it makes absolutely no difference to the encyclopedia. (and for that matter, an/i cannot actually conclude which way is better. It does not directly deal with content) ) Most quarrels based originally about content that are this extended are over something significant in some way--usually, the interpretation of something that is or could--however remotely--be interpreted in some manner to be controversial. But this is controversial is no way whatsoever. When we have such an extended dispute over something inconsequential, it's almost always a matter of style (those quarrels are peculiar also, but they seem to be a recurrent feature of enWP. They are extended generally because there is perfectly good reason for either position, but at least there's the question of what ought to be the better.) I read the whole of the enWP discussion. puzzled because I could not figure out why anybody would have thought it made a difference--I read it a second time, and concluded that it did not.
I can only conclude that the dispute arose because of previous disagreements. However, as was hinted in the discussion, these arose at the nlWP. The basis for them can only be figured out there, and it's the business of the people there to deal with it. (Even had I thought it appropriate to consider it at enWP, I would have had to rely on a rough translation, and would thus be unable to figure out the implications and tone of what had been said there--this is true even of discussions in other WPs where I know the language--the different manner of discussions and the special meanings of terms used in the discussions makes it almost impossible for someone not closely familiar with that WP to accurately understand the true sense of what is said.)
What I said is essentially the equivalent of a very narrow no-fault topic or interaction ban, as in fact had been suggested. It is in my opinion not generally helpful to try to establish blame in disputes like this. My experience from arb com is except in the truely obvious cases, different unbiased people will see this differently--even when the sequence of events is clear, it usually comes down to whether the blame should be on person who was provoked, or the person who did the provoking, and the responsibility is generally on both, because either of them could have prevented the quarrel. The purpose of ani/i is not to punish or blame, but to stop further disruption. Some admins do not like the principle of no-fault conclusions--myself, I think they are usually the best solution. I base this on my own method of avoiding disputes--after two replies or so, I just stop. If I am right, other people will have been convinced, but if I cannot convince people after two tries, further ones won't do any better. If other people did likewise, there would be very few quarrels here. That's certainly true in this case--either side could simply have stopped, because there is no sense in arousing bad feelings over something as trivial as this. There are things in the world--and even on WP--that actually matter. One could argue that honing one's skills on these trivial concerns serves as a sort of debate training for real political or other issues, but that's using WP for a purpose destructive of building the encyclopedia.
My different treatment of The Banner was specifically because--as he has just said himself right above on this page--he had thought it advisable to step back from the issue. There was therefore no need to compel him to stop--he had already done so. DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the clarification: this all makes sense. Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


another statement of promotionalism[edit]

There are two problems: the content and the sourcing.. Sources need to be references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Most of your references are press releases, either prwire or a publication reprinting prwire. Some are just directory information. Others look like newspaper articles, but are not independent, because they merely reprint what you told them. Some, like the Inquirer or NBC, are general information about the problem of addiction combined with a interview where they reprint what you told them. Some are just announcements of hte opening of a facility. And a fe are just directory listings. There is not a single one which fully meets the requirements.
Most of the content is a list of individual centers and the specific services they provide; this belongs on your web site, not an encyclopedia. Much of the rest is payment information, ditto.
It is extremely difficult for a person with direct COI to write an acceptable WP article. What they usually produce is just what you have produced, the information that they would like the public to know, especially prospective clients. That what PR work consists of, and there's nothing wrong with it in its proper places. Announcing your existence and fee structure to prospective clients can be a useful activity. But an encyclopedia article gives what a member of the general public who has heard of your centers might want to know. This does include the number of centers and the general locations. It also includes information about the growth of your company, but since I see it's a private company that may not be available.
If you can find proper encyclopedic sources, you can try again , but without them it will be impossible to have an article. DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 '

BTW, journal search links[edit]

See Template:Infobox journal#Search links if you haven't already. It adds a couple of useful links to the infobox (see [28] for what that looks like). Those aren't displayed to readers, just people who choose to see those links. Lets you verify/determine abbreviations quickly, and also look up indexing on MIAR. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

==Who's better 'n who==

Dear Mr Librarian, Sir, I wonder if you've encountered the article Rankings of academic publishers. I came across it for the first time today. It's ... interesting. At least three of the academic publishers that Spaniards are said to have rated highest have crap standards, In My Haughty Opinion. (I shan't name two of them, as this might upset friends who've had stuff published by them; but the third is Springer.) And those inscrutable, anglophile or leg-pulling Spaniards are said to have regarded Blackwell more highly than they did Wiley, which had already more or less gobbled it up. Et cetera. Salvageable? -- Hoary (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC) I've belatedly taken the trouble to click on the link and see the list (not of academic but of foreign academic publishers). The dread Edwin Mellen Press outranks, inter alia, the University of Toronto Press. What can those Spaniards have been smoking? -- Hoary (talk) 06:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Reviewer Barnstar Hires.png The Reviewer Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts for reviewing new articles in Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 10:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


(from an AfC comment)[edit]

...The standard for acceptance is not that it unquestionably pass afd, but that it probably will pass AfD. Interpretations of "probably" in this context vary--no reviewer uses just 51%, most use between 70% and 90%. These are obviously not exact numbers, because AfD is unpredictable--nobody is capable of selecting articles that will always pass, because even if the reviewer knows the standards perfectly, the AfD consensus does not always follow it. (my own estimate is that about 5%-10% of AfD decisions are wrong, in the sense of being against what would be the more usual consensus) And, very few of my acceptances have ever been deleted, because if there is a problem, I try to improve the draft myself before accepting it. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

(academics & public affairs)[edit]

from recent afds

  • with respect to AP:AUTHOR, A co-edited volume counts much less than an authored book, and so there is only one substantial publication. This isn't enough for either WP:AUTHOR (I point out that every academic book has at lest one and usually 2 reviews, regardless of significance--the point of academic reviews of academicbooks is to tell scholars what other people are publishing--its the humanities equivalent of being listed in an abstracting service) , and her work is not cited sufficiently for WP:PROF as an influential academic./
  • With respect to the public influence portion of WP:PROF as a (which, as pointed out, is essentially thesame as WP:GNG, though generally interpreted fairly narrowly), there is not substantial coverage. If references 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were substantially about her, or her work, they would be, but they are not. It is necessary to read the references, not just look at thetitles: in each of them, she is just one of several people quoted, to add material or perspective to the reporter's or commentator's content. None ofthe 5 give her special attention. Nor should we give any credance to the reporter describing someone they quote as an authority--that's the routine description, in order to justify using them in the first place: everyone whose opinion an essayist or reporter uses automatically is called by them an "authority". There is possibly some place to build an index of everyone ever mentioned in a magazine or newspaper, but it isn't Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Dear DGG. I am new the Wikipedia thing (I have tried a few times before, but have never been successful in getting going). Upon some exploration today into my grandfathers page, it appears you were the one who saved it from speedy deletion and made sure his legacy was remembered after he died. I don't know how to get in touch with you but, I have some great information I would like to add to his page, but don't really know how to go about it. Maybe you would be able to coach me. He has a boat load of awesome awards that aren't listed here (i.e. Rocha Lima Medal [1967] and Hermine Aye (his mother) was the niece of the Vice Chancellor of Germany in the early 1900s. His lab still lives on beyond his own life and is still doing great things.

Anyways. Thanks for saving his page and being dedicated to preserving the legacies of academics. I can't thank you enough. Banach13 (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Banach13, the first step is finding the source for them. Then go to the page, click edit at the top, and add them with the references. Give it a try, and let me know. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

AfC-barnstar-remake.png The Articles for Creation barnstar
For accepting a raft of deserving drafts on this day. ~Kvng (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


Regarding Draft:Ishvinder Maddh[edit]

Hello. You rejected Draft:Ishvinder Maddh. I conduct a project for new editors, mostly in German-language Wikipedia, where I'm a longtime volunteer editor. The draft's author is one of them and also fluent in English so she could contribute in English Wikipedia, too. The project focusses on socially relevant topics, and Ishvinder Maddh is a well-known figure in the Austrian movie landscape and renowned as a sort of "cultural ambassador", that's why he is in our scope. The article is written in a different style than I would use (e.g. a little "excessive" use of references) - but I can't explain to the new editor what's wrong with it. :) First and foremost, I think it's written in a neutral, not in PR style. I hope you could reconsider your rejection (I'm not that familiar with enwiki's draft system), or could explain me some of the abbreviations you used. (We have a similar problem in German-language Wikipedia with new editors and insider language, now I can experience this first hand...) 1. "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. bio" What does "bio" in the context of the Five Pillars mean? 2. "WO does not do that" What does WO mean? 3. "Topic is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia (AFCH 0.9.1)" (from the edit summary). What's 0.9.1? Thank you! --Raimund Liebert (WMAT) (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Raimund Liebert (WMAT) (talk · contribs) -- I will give you a full explanation later today--this will take a while to explain properly.And I'll deal properly with the article. In the mean time, I apologize, DGG ( talk ) 15:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

There are several factors involved. 1. Although all the Wikipedias in the various languages I have seen appear to have problems with promotionalism , because of the very diverse readership of the English WP, there seems to be a special pressure here. I don't know the figures for elsewhere, but for many years almost half of the submissions to the English WP are eventualy rejected for either lack of notability or promotionalism, which commonly go together. For businesspeople, especially those who call themselve sentrepreneurs, the figure is probably more like 80%. Consequently we have a very high degree of suspicion. It's inevitable that we make mistakes--guessing at the numbers, we probably fail to remove about 10% , and we probably unreasonably remove about 2%. That does not excuse our errors, and we need to improve in both direction, but as a practical matter I doubt we will ever get the numbers reduced by more than half.

Furthermore, promotionalism in the world in general, and in Wikipedia in particular, is so pervasive, that even people without a promotional intend tend to write in a promotional manner. Sometimes., they even copy the style of promotional articles in WP, saying in all honesty that they think this is what is wanted. On the one hand this gives an increasing urgency to the removal of the large amount of promotionalism entered in earlier years when we had lower standards, but it also requires remembering that not all promotional-looking articles here are deliberate advertising. It's very easy to lose sight of this, and I know this is not the first time I --and others-- have done so.
There's not actually a sharp distinction between promotionalism and the incidental promotionalism that necessarily accompanies an article about any notable current individual or organization. Finding out about something will tend to encourage attention to it.and finding out about good things, or people who do good things, will inherently to at least some degree promote them.
There are a number of differences between the enWP and the deWP. I'm quite aware of them, because (though a typical of Americans I have no real speaking or writing knowledge of any language but English) as an academic librarian I have just enough reading ability in German (and in French and, borderline, in Russian) to revise articles translated from those languages into the enWP, and to fix the customary Google translations they are usually based on.
Most of what I work on is from German, because for a wide range of academic fields, the articles in the deWP are more complete than in enWP. As a rule, the articles are also better written, as there are (presumably) fewer non-native speakers in the de than the wp WP.We have a special page WP:Translating German Wikipedia of advice on this: perhaps the key difference is the greater insistence on specific formal references in enWP. (That does not mean our content is more accurate--just that we insist everything be written out, and avoid the sort of general references found in the deWP.

2.A key procedural difference is the enWP has a two-step process for accepting articles from new editors: they go first into Draft space, and are then evaluated by a process called WP:Articles for Creation, where the standard is to only pass those that have a reasonable chance of being accepted. After approval, the nrew articles go into our regular New Pages Patrol Process. The purpose of Draft space is to give editors a chance to revise--and also to decrease the likelihood of a promotional article being mistakenly accepted. (we still continue the userspace subpages for rough drafts). "AFCH 0.9.1 " is the current version of the program that handles the details. "WO does not do that" is my typo--it should have been "WP does not do that".

3.As for the draft: the reasons I judged it promotional included:

  1. The duplicated list of film productions,
  2. the use of vague language "facilitated" , "explored" , "ventured", "under his guidance"
  3. Style characteristics such as the inappropriate use of bold face for project names, the inappropriate capitalization of terms like Tourism and Film Productions, Aviation Industries, etc.
  4. The list of cities visited
  5. The second picture & its legend, which is non-informative and amounts to name dropping
  6. The excessive citations more than are needed to reference the actual content.--we call that WP:CITEKILL
  7. And, especially, the nature of the citations: most of them are press releases, travel promotion sites, non-authoritative websites, quotes from the subject, mere mentions in general articles,

and combinations thereof.

I have reverted my earlier review, and I have re-reviewed. The promotional elements do need to be fixed. I am additionally not at all sure that the few good references are enough to support notability (of course, we recognize that almost all references available for the Indian film industry is very unreliable, with even the best news sources contaminated by the expectations that producers and other participants will pay for news coverage, so we tend to be a little flexible.) DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your time and thoughts. I see Jenishh next week, I think your advice is most helpful.
In German-language Wikipedia promotionalism is a (social) issue in the Onboarding Program (de:Wikipedia:Mentorenprogramm) where many new editors seek support by experienced editors only because they want to write about themselves or their company. However any conflicts of interest or promotional language cannot be used as justifications for the rejection of new articles; many deletions of new articles are because of our notorious notability criteria which are also known in the general public: at least some years ago I often heard, "if you want to write about yourself, better go to English Wikipedia." Specific formal references became important a while ago, it's more like in English Wikipedia now. However there are still tons of articles without strict referencing from former years - which makes it sometimes difficult to explain to new editors why they can't write their articles like existing articles anymore. --Raimund Liebert (WMAT) (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I have for the last 10 years been doing the same sort of activity you do, at theWP-NYC editathons. In the beginning, 8 or 10 years ago, we would try to accommodate people who wanted to do an autobiography or had strong COI. After spending an undue amount of time with them with very little positive results in articles, our practice has changed. Unless the notability and available sourcing is really excellent, we stop them. Consequently, unlike most of the editathons in the US, we have almost 100% results in our articles not getting deleted in Wikipedia . (We can't prevent them trying it outside the editathon, but we do not want it under our banner. And in practice we do effectively stop almost all of them, because--NYC being the sort of place it is--most of the people who try to get articles about themselves are early-career musicians or artists. The effective argument for them is that if their notability is inadequate, the article will get deleted--after a discussion in which it will remain on permanent record in WP why the person was found not to be notable--and that this will not help their careers.
More generally, unlike what I believe is the pattern in Europe, WM-NYC has no centralized control over editathons--any person or group who can find space and attract people can run one, and we list them on our events page if they are at least in principle open to the public and otherwise in line with the purposes of WP. Everyone in our chapter is a volunteer in the chapter, though sometimes a WPedian in residence or an employee of a co-operating institution. Our membership includes many very experienced WPedians with a range of interests (about half of us librarians or other educators) ; enough volunteers have always come to guide every event. We have no formal way to enforce standards, but we volunteers are fortunately in approximate agreement on standards & practices; when there have been disagreements, we have worked out a modus vivendi--which I think we do better for lack of much in the way of formal structure. (There are of course also non-public editing sessions usually in connection with educational programs, and one or two of us generally help there also, but we do not usually list themas current events--they are included for the record in our event archive. Please note that all of the above is only my own personal interpretation of what I think we do. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
as for the draft, I've accepted it. Any further improvements can be made in mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Ayoub El Amloud[edit]

I know I keep droning on about this in various places, but this article is typical of the reason why I totally fail to understand why academics are considered non-notable by default until they have jumped through many, many hoops, but the quarter million bios about soccer payers are nearly all like this. Something needs to be done about this kind of SNG. Maybe I'm just biased - I am an extremely rare type of Brit who can't abide soccer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Were we to start trying to decide explicitly the appropriate relative coverage of the different fields, I foresee interminable and bitter arguments which would lead to instability, and make impossible even our very limited approach to rational decision making about individual articles. (The result, furthermore, might be very unsatisfactory--any consensus would really be a measure of the cultural understanding of the average WPedian, which in turn is a function of the level of the English-speaking world in general. )
So for practical action, the two problems are separate. For sports, the best approach is to make use of the usually ignored provision in the WP:N guideline for merging articles about technically notable subjects about which there is little information, WP:NOPAGE. (The page on the team would seem the obvious place to merge when relevant. WP:MERGE specifies two methods, merge discussion on individual talk pages, and mergers as alternatives to deletion at AfD. There's a provision for centralized listing of merge proposals; pehaps there should be a central place for discussion.
For academics, the basic hoop is having an influence on their field--I think that a reasonable approach. I have many times suggested that we accept a full professorship at a major research university as sufficient evidence of this, on hte basis that they are more equipped to judge than we are. (This can even be linked to sport criteria--in a sense, it's similar to playing on a highest level professional team.) There are various good criteria for what level of university we might require. Recently, there have been an increasing number of instances for associate professors passing afd (I think this may reflect the increasing competition in the academic world, which is causing a ancrease in standards for positions). So we might as a second step have a two level rule: full at a research university, associate ata major research university. Reflecting various discussion I've known , a decision for associate professor in a major university means a decision that the individual will be permanently of so great an influence as to attract other researchers and faculty. That's a very high standard, and such decisions by experts should be respected. DGG ( talk ) 11:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Useful neologism?[edit]

You seem to have (inadvertently?) invented a new term, culturall (or cross-culturall) [29] and in all seriousness I think it has a nice ring to it. EEng 11:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Inadvertent, and, as you suggest, I'm going to let them stand. . DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you for reviewing and accepting Lise-Meitner-Lectures, I`ll do my best to improve this and related articles! Best regards ASchoenherr (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Request on 13:19:05, 17 September 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by LindzSchmidt[edit]


Hi! I need help understanding what specific changes I should make to the page in order to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. The reason for your decline stated that it "should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources," and as you'll see, I included 16 entirely independent, highly reputable sources -- none of which included content produced by or for the company. Additionally, when modeling this submission, I took careful pains to ensure it matched the near-exact format of other published Wikipedia pages (such as Rent_the_Runway and Hims,_Inc.). So I'm really unsure as to what I should be editing. The more specific guidance, the better! I welcome any & all feedback. Thank you very much! LindzSchmidt (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

forthcoming, will take a few days because I 777want to give a complete answer. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
hi David -- quickly following up here as I know you're extremely busy, in case if fell off your radar. thanks! ( talk ) 02:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
LindzSchmid, Apologies for the delay.
The message said that the primary problem was promotionalism , but also said, as with most promotional articles, the problem is equally the nature of the references, and the doubtful notability of the company according to our rules. It's our standard message, because a great many other people have similar problems.
I'm going to answer in some detail, both about the particular problems and the reasons for them, as articles like this are one of the main things I work with here, and others come here to ask similar questions--and many editors who deal with them look at this page also.
(1) The preliminary problem is about conflict of interest: you have made a declaration, but not full disclosure according to WP:PAID; We do not ask you to say who you are, but rather the nature of the relationship. I will assume you are a staff member or contractor of the company whose job it is to write publicity.
(2) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for publicity. Promotional content is material that says what the subject of the article would like the public to know; encyclopedic content is what someone in the general public who has heard the name of your company somewhere might want to know. The usual context for an article of this sort is something like "Mary said she bought something from X; I wonder who they are" or "I saw an advertisement from X--I'd like to see something objective about them." That's the general public--someone looking to buy furniture is best served by other resources, and the web does this fairly well--we have no need to be a directory or a product guide.
For comparison, though Rent the Runway was written in considerable part by a coi editor, the firm now has multiple refs from some of the most reliable major non-specialized sources. Hims, Inc has at least some similar very good sources. When this firm has similar sources, it will be possible to write an acceptable article.
(3) In earlier years WP accepted many such promotional articles, but recognizing that we have become a very attractive place for attempted advertising, our standards have risen. It will be many years until we remove the 50,000 or so articles we need to get rid of, but the least we can do is not add to them. The prevalence of promotionalism in the world is so great that ofter newcomers acting in perfect good faith write articles here in a promotional style, because they see so many existing promotional articles that they think that's what we want; yet others, like Hims Inc., though written by experienced editors, contain promotional elements. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

AFC contributions[edit]

Wanted to pop you a quick note just to recognise your extensive AFC work, I see you do a lot at AFC and feel it's an under-appreciated task, so thank you. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 11:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Draftification[edit]

Hi @DGG:, I am confused why you moved my newly created page to AfC (Register of Professional Archaeologists)? I was under the impression that intermediate-level editors creating a new page (which satisfies WP:N) need not submit their articles for months-long review. This might only be starter page, for sure, but I don't understand why it must go through review purgatory -- indeed, I can't find any policy stating this.

However, I do not want to revert your move, so I ask that you please consider moving it back to the namespace (and/or at least, provide your reasoning). Thank you, --Tiredmeliorist (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps moved to save from deletion, with 5/8 sources being self-refs? Hyperbolick (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
hmm, ok, thanks @Hyperbolick: I cleaned it up a bit. I'm just citing the original sources here, though-- when referencing an organization's principles and guidelines, it would be erroneous to cite anyone BUT them, no? --Tiredmeliorist (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
No, reliable independent sources still prevail over self-refs. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
So it's better to cite secondary sources than primary ones?? That's how misinformation spreads. Like, what you are saying is that it is better to reference what another author wrote about this organization's guidelines than what the guidelines themselves say. I understand independent, external commentary is needed and fills in missing context (and this is certainly not the place for original research), but here I am simply summarizing their guidelines and thus referencing the primary source of the information. The use of "self ref" here seems over-zealous -- I am not even convinced that is the reason DGG draftified this. --Tiredmeliorist (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Question is, if nobody else has written anything of these guidelines, what makes them noteworthy to include? Hyperbolick (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I am specifically addressing the "self-ref" thing, which I believe has been remedied. The article meets WP:N, and the organization's code of conduct is worth summarizing at least, as it is for every other professional organization described on Wikipedia.

I'll await a response from @DGG: on the reason he moved this to draft. --Tiredmeliorist (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, when referencing an organization's internal guidelines, certainly one cites the organization itself. But to show the organization notable, one needs external sources. That's the basic principle for inclusion here, WP:N. You do have two externaal sources, refs. 2 and 3. But in each case they're printed books, and though printed books are perfectly OK for sources, we really need o have some idea how extensive the discussion is there, because it might just be a mention in a list. The way to do this is to give page numbers, and ,if it's very brief, sometimes a quotation of what it says.
That however was not the problem. The problem was that the article was promotional , indistinguishable from a web page the organization might post on its own site.. The present draft is oriented to show why the organization is needed and how important it is. Rather , it should be oriented to telling what the organization is and what it does. It needs to be directed towards what the general public might like to know, not whatthe organization would like the public to know. The way to do this is to find external sources that talk about the organizations work.
This is not the place to explain the development of archeology in the US--that should be a separate article; we do not seem to have one, and it needs to be written. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Gerard Reinmuth[edit]

Hi DDG

As a Creative professionals, I would like to contest the nomination for speedy deletion, however the page is no longer in existence that I can see.

It was referenced as G11 Unambiguous advertising or promotion. The information was factual and based off a number of external wiki resources as well as internal wiki references. If it was believed the content was not written from a neutral point of view i would have like the opportunity to adjust the text accordingly

According to the List of Policies Criteria for speedy deletion [1] Articles, images, categories etc. may be "speedily deleted" if they clearly fall within certain categories, which generally boil down to pages lacking content, or disruptive pages. Anything potentially controversial should go through the deletion process instead. The content was not lacking or distruptive and would not cause any controversy. The only criteria that the page could have fallen under would be a Proposed deletion of biographies of living people [2]

If you could advise on how i can proceed, as i have been advised by WP:REFUND that i should contact the administrator who carried out the deletion as the page was completely deleted overnight.

If you have any advise on how to improve the page that would be appreciated, as i am new to wikipedia posting any would appreciate any guidance.

Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerard Reinmuth (talkcontribs) 22:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

No matter how notable you are, it is not a good idea to write about yourself. When you do , you are almost inevitably going to be telling what you want people to know about yourself, rather then writing from a neutral point of view what general readers might want to know; this is the essence of self-advertising, or promotionalism. In this particular instance, in addition to listing your major projects as an architect, you added a line for each saying what you thought the importance of it to be--this is the sort of information that most come fro from third-party independent published reliable sources,. In discussing your teaching, you included a long quote describing not just your educational philosophy, and also included wording extolling its merits and success. In listing awards, you included minor as well as major awards, you included being nominated along with actually winning an award, and you provided no third party references for any of this.
Ten years ago, I would probably have rewritten the page, but there is now so many autobiographies and other promotional material submitted to Wikipedia that it has become impractical. Even two years ago, I would have restored it so you can work on it further. I will no longer restore autobiographies. If any editor without a conflict of interest wants to work on it, I will resotre it to draft. If any other administrator wants to restore it so you can work on it, I have no objections. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

' DGG thank you for the constructive feedback, really appreciated. Can i give and external editor access to the restored draft through my profile? Gerard Reinmuth (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Request on 00:09:57, 24 September 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Mr Kalm[edit]

:One thing you say is certainly right, and I have been saying this on and off for 12 years now: we should not call it " notability " because then when we reject an article, it does sound like an insult andis not really fair to the subject. '
What we really mean is "not suitable for an article in an encyclopedia", and that properly puts the responsibility for the decision on us. ' DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


NCORP[edit]

....I feel the way in which certain industry segments are being presented on Wikipedia does not reflect reality – highlighing small players, disregarding bigger and more relevant ones. Rzenner (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The proper criteria according to the current rules is references providing substantial coverage from truly third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements --and not just about initial funding or opening of facilities, etc. It's explained further at WP:NCORP. Technically, size, etc is irrelevant. I consider that absurd, with only a weak correlation to any real-world idea of significance, and have been saying so for all of my 12 years here. However, there's strong consensus to use that rule. (Though in practice, whether we consider the references adequate can be affected by such things as relative importance within an industry). And whether we accept any article can depend on whether the field has fans at WP--we go by consensus, whether the consensus is right or wrong. If you'll think about it, there's no other way a system like ours' without any actual structure of authority for questions of content could work otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


Draft:Jeff Webb[edit]

I removed a lot of the draft so that hopefully it now isn’t an advertisement. --Kookyquail (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


To revert an edit (added out of place -- just noticed)[edit]

Sir, one of contribution made by an user "Abrjestin" in Dr. Shamsheer article is irrelevant. He removed the previous relevant edits made by other user. One of his work is that he removed a preposition "a" before"MBBS"(undergraduate) degree owned by Dr. Shamsheer (in early life paragraph). A silly grammatical error. I have also seen that you had advised him not to make such edits on his talk page but in spite of that he is not paying attention. I also think that the article page should be protected so, that any irrelevant edit should not be done by anyone. It will be very nice if you cross check the article once more. Thanks. (223.230.137.128 (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC))

mail[edit]

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

Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Your QID[edit]

Hi David.

I'm building w:template:WiR_table_row to help automate the Wikipedians_in_Residence table. Do you have an existing qid? See wikidata:Q25212744#P106 as an example. Also, is there a wiki page to point to for the Wikipedian in Residency with the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (2012-present)? Cheers T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 12:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I am no longer a WIR. As I was a volunteer, it wasn't a clearly defined position and I think I stopped doing ti regularly about 8 years ago. I'll check. DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


Trap of promotionalism?[edit]

Dear Editor, I found this thought of yours "Furthermore, promotionalism in the world in general, and in Wikipedia in particular, is so pervasive, that even people without a promotional intend tend to write in a promotional manner." I wonder if this is a trap I might be in too. When I saw your comments on Draft:Sergei_Vakarin I thought it was clear what to do and fixed most of the issues you kindly mentioned. I presented the facts and provided references. However, maybe my current style is a reflection of the trend you mention? Your editorial experience (if I could ask for a favour) would help me a lot in improving my style for any further articles I was planning about issues that are currently missing from the Wikipedia. Demetrius Phalerum (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes--it will in this case be a little complicated to explain Remember the distinction between something written from the perspective of what the subject might want the reader to know, and what a reader might want to know. As a start, try reorganizing it in the sequence, Biography, Education, Positions, Research, Publications, Public Involvement--that is, pretty much the reverse of the present version. Then ping me here again and I iwll take a look. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! I applied your recommended structure on Draft:Sergei_Vakarin and updated the text. It is amazing how much better the information is organized now - thanks a lot! And could I ask you - if you still see any irrelevant information - to kindly change or just delete it? Demetrius Phalerum (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

A muskrat for you![edit]

Muskrat 1.jpg Thanks for editing with The Black Lunch Table!----Raggachampiongirl (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
This weekend we celebrate International Teacher's Day. A star for you for being an invaluable teacher for the new editors of Wikipedia! Demetrius Phalerum (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 9[edit]

DirectCash Bank and General Bank of Canada[edit]

@DGG:, the reason I added the WP:PROD tag to the above-captioned redirect pages is that they serve as a redirect to a list of Canadian banks; however, for clarity and information purposes, they're listed as redlinked names in the Template:Canadian banks pages (should anyone ultimately decide to create a page, and so people know they exist). Thus, clicking on that link in that footer box takes the user to yet another list making for a de-facto double redirect. If you'd let me put back on the WP:PROD tag, that'd be appreciated as my concern is the RfD deletion process doesn't have a high success rate. Doug Mehus (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

If the consensus at RfD would not be to remove, this would not be a proper use of Prod. In my opinion, the question of red links vs redirects to a list has good arguments in both directions. As I understand it, that's the purpose of the redirect with possibilities tag. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
DGG, That's fair re: RfD consensus, but if I explain my rationale better, I'm wondering if you might have a way to explain this in an RfD process and see my logic process behind wanting to delete the redirect (which has no real value). You see, in Template:Canadian banks, which I like to maintain religiously and regularly, that template is added to the footer of every page. Many banks and credit unions that aren't WP:Notable are still listed in that template as redlinked banks. If we have a redirect, instead of deleting the page, which redirects to List of banks and credit unions in Canada, the user clicks through from the template to the list. I just don't think that's helpful. Does that make more sense?
. Myself, I like lists because of the information they can give, but my view here has consistently been that each way one is right if it has some advantage for some users. But the problem you pose is real, and I have an idea for a workaround. More tomorrow, when I have a chance to try it out. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
DGG, Yeah, I do like lists, too, and I'm all for including them in those lists. I see another user (@Wugapodes:) added a clarifying footnote on WP:Printability, which is useful. However, I'm wondering if we can make this a soft redirect somehow? That is, the user sees the redirect page and chooses whether to click through? What were you thinking of?


Educational establishments[edit]

Not an RfC at all, but more a tiny group slowly but surely making changes that probably require a larger consensus. Perhaps you could take a look. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 10[edit]

Content Translation Slides[edit]

Hi DGG, I am posting the slides to my presentation here as you asked. Thank you for your interest! https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1rOyIssDrYehc2i_HE4wt8tDPD36xWbbZNRumVX9IZYU/edit?usp=sharing Doriszhou1224 (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

AfC COI[edit]

Howdy hello! You mentioned some draft templates you were working on in regards to AfC and COI. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 21:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

revising them a little/.I'll let you know. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC) .

"Geographies" as spacial marker for 'varied' economic realities[edit]

Hello User:DGG, It was great meeting you at WikiConference North America this year! Relating to the conversation we had, I decided to do a bit of digging, to give a bit more of a colorful idea behind the idea of geographies as a spacial marker for varied economic realities as used in the roundtable we shared in. I noted your preference for this term as opposed to (the oft-used) unnuanced hemispheric divisions for discussions relating to global issues surrounding economics, human development, and access.

The term (in this context) is a multidisciplinary approach to identifying and appealing to a more politically correct & comprehensive view of varying realities with an eye for establishing a distancing from implicit political & racial biases. It achieves this through the intentional exclusion of the terms "North" and "South"; cited as sources of the aforementioned implicit bias(es). Moreover, authors like Ahlberg et. al speak of the 'biases' resulting from;

...the shift from an explicitly racial system of stratification for example, based on colonialism, segregation and apartheid, to a system of racial hegemony. —  Ahlberg et. al, https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2019.00061/full

I would love to delve much further into the idea with you perhaps, at your convenience, either in a presentation or even a paper if you'd like.

Let's keep the conversation going.

JamaicanEditor (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC) Check

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for your diligence in contributing at AfD with policy based justifications and reliable sources. You are setting good examples for the new contributors at AfD. your good work is appreciated. DBigXray 16:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
You deserve it for your tireless work on Wikipedia and especially helping to improve pages here. ScholarM (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Yelp[edit]

I seem to remember you participating in the page previously and thought you might have a minute to take a look here. I tried Request Edit but the response doesn't make sense; asked me to incorporate the currently-used citations but the current text has no citations as part of the Lead. CorporateM (Talk) 17:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

it would still help to have a reference. Are any of the ones from the article usable here also ? DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


review of Barbara Straker James[edit]

Hi, DGG. Thank you for reviewing the article Barbara_Straker_James. Though I've been around WP for quite a while, I haven't created many articles and I'm not clear on the review process. Please, if you have a moment, I'd really appreciate it if you could tell me what "review" means here. I notice that in my Notices where I was informed of your review, there is no link to anything that explains what a review is, nor a link to a review (i.e., something written), and I notice that the article and its talk page have not been edited by you. So I'm not clear what it means that you reviewed it. I note that Help:Notifications#Notices mentions that we get Notices "When a page you created is reviewed" but that page does not link to any further information. I could not find the article on any list of reviewed articles, e.g., Wikipedia:Peer_review. Finally, Wikipedia:Reviewing lists a number of different possibilities for what "review" might mean and who might do it. I will be thankful for any information you could send my way about the review process. Cheers, Doctormatt (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

As you have observed, we use the word reviewing for several different things.
In this context, it refers to the process of WP:New Page Patrol, where all incoming article except those by known reliable very experienced users are checked for their basic acceptability. ( Ideally, we would make comments instead of just checking them, but there's an urgent need to keep up with all the incoming articles, preferably within a day or so of their creation.) I normally first check that there are no critical unrepairable faults, such as no evidence of significance, or use of WP for advertising, or copyright violation, or nonsense. If so, I list them for speedy deletion. Another admin verifies, and they are gone in a few hours. I next check to see whether they seems to meet the requirements for notability, WP:N; this can be complicated. If I think they do not, there are three ways to go: eithermove them to Draft space, where there are 6 months allowed to ty to find sources to improve them, or list them for deletion after 7 days if not rescued, (prod), or list for a formal deletion discussion (AfD) I decide based on my experience of what the consensus here is likely to find acceptable, and the likelihood of problem articles being improvable. Similarly, if it is promotional but not outrageous advertising, I decide whether to fix, send to draft for fixing, or list for possible deletion. I will usually apply a few of the basic warning tags if it's acceptable but needs significant improvement, such as "one source only", or "promotional tone" , or "rough translation". There are many less major problems, and generally several people will go around checking for cross-references, citation format, basic style, proper categories, need for an illustration, and so forth. We used to check if they needed expansion; it was decided to no longe do this, because most articles do need expansion. (This particular article, as I'm sure you've noticed, does need expansion. More on your talk page.) DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, DGG! Cheers, Doctormatt (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


Permissions[edit]

DGG, about this, I would like to assist remotely, and now that I have reread that post, I realize that “If this is required, I will not be able to attend the event“ is kind of confusing. The specific event is Philippines.

E Super Maker (😲 shout) 14:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I don’t want to do this if I have to be online at certain times.E Super Maker (😲 shout) 02:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
@DGG,has this discussion been forgotten? E Super Maker (😲 shout) 01:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:UE Super Maker |I am not clear what you want to do any why. If you;re going to work remotely, I do not see why you need the user DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 11[edit]

About your notes on Draft:Clockify[edit]

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you again for your work on WP:AfD and Proposed deletions. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

WikiConference 2019, North America: Following up after our great conversation.[edit]

Thank you so much for the time you spent with me reviewing the Laurel C. Schneider submission. The 1000+ Women in Religion Project will be working together to make this article a good model for future new articles about academics that are similar to Dr. Schneider. We just finished our presentations and work with the 1000+ Women in Religion Wikipedia Project at the American Academy of Religion and Society of Biblical Literature. We did an edit-a-thon and a women's biography panel. It was a successful effort. Now I can turn my attention to the suggestions you made on the Laurel C. Schneider article. I plan to be in your area in late January or early February. Perhaps I can convince the librarians at Burke Library at Columbia to set up an edit-a-thon. Thanks again for your kind attention.--Dzingle1 (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


Student drafts[edit]

I'm not entirely clear on how Wikipedia's policies are on this. There are other drafts I was going to make for this student project, but I don't know if it's allowed. Is it?-K-popguardian (talk) 04:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I would put deletion disclaimers once I'm done using them.-K-popguardian (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC) I would put deletion disclaimers once I'm done using them.-K-popguardian (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC) −

  • If I understand the situation correctly you wrote a draft article Draft:Off the Hook (band) about an imaginary band to use for a student film, and said in the edit summary "To whoever finds this article, I am writing this for a student film and should not be taken seriously. Most likely when you find this I'll have taken enough screenshots so feel free to delete it if you get here." Presumably your purpose was to have scenes of someone editing this article as part of the film. This is not an acceptable use of Wikipedia . The relevant policy is WP:NOT section 2.5 item 5. "Content for projects unrelated to Wikipedia. "

− I and several hundred other editors and administrators devote many hours of volunteer work towards helping good articles get included in the encyclopedia, and making sure that inappropriate ones do not. In particular, the several dozen highly active editors reviewing Draftspace follow an intricate set of protocols to check material, see that everything goes where it ought to, advise good faith users how to improve their work, and try to persuade and if necessary remove those who would use WP for advertising and editorializing. We are thousands of drafts behind, representing material submitted in some cases as many as 3 months ago. − There is an accepted place to experiment: see WP:SANDBOX. I have accordingly created a page for you User:K-popguardian/Sandbox which you can use for the purpose. There's another way you can create sample screens: Start a page, enter your content, but do not save it: just show preview. If you accidentally save it, add a {{db-self}} line at the top.

And there's the actually best way to make an article for a film: make a real article on a notable subject. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


A kitten for you![edit]

Red Kitten 01.jpg

Kitchenshaming is not a practice some people deal with daily, how can you say it is not notable enough? I think you are a biased reviewer.

Alieneggs (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm biased in favor of articles with good sources. DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


Draft:DC Solar[edit]

I saw you had moved this entry to draft space. It is quite notable now as a massive fraud. Lots of coverage. I added some recent sources and noted in the intro the unraveling. How do I get it approved for mainspace? Should I just remove all or most of the rest of what was there? I think it's actually an interesting legacy of a promotional effort and once the reader is informed that it was a fraud the rest is read in that context. I'm not interested enough.to want to invest.oodles.of.time into it or reworking it. I do think we should cover the subject.FloridaArmy (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree it's now notable enough, but I think it needs at least one sentence indicating what happened to the races they sponsored. And to clarify it wasn't the principals who pleaded guilty.
As you recognize, this is a dilemma. A company or person that's at most borderline notable as what they pretend to be becomes much more notable once they're found out. This makes it difficult to balance the article. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


draft Zhang Dinghuan[edit]

I already put in inline links to the version you edited. If you edit some more, I can do the same. Please check the current version. You can see it. Thanks. QSandai (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Abuse at you from anon IP at AfD[edit]

I would like to comment on the unnecessary abuse you received at the end of AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anil Kumar Bhalla. I believe it was totally unwarranted. I was on the verge of countering it or attempting to get it blocked but in the end rightly or wrongly chose to ignore it (I think there is sometimes advice to consider doing this). Even if we have disagreed on points I have you place neutral comments and subtle advices on the AfD upon which people could hang their arguments. The reason I got alerted to the AfD's was I had the creator of 3 the articles tagged on my talk page which led me to the AfD; I've now removed that page from my watchlist (and yours will be too annoying active to put a watch on it). Thank you. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It is possible to get me angry here, but it takes much more than that. Questioning the degree to which I understand the honours system of India is not abuse, for it true I do not understand it as well as their higher educational system. The AfD was to see if it would be deleted. That can depend on other factors that the encyclopedic suitability of the subject, and I do not want to waste efforts on articles that ought to be deleted, but won't be. DGG ( talk ) 16:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

==

Question re recently accepted article[edit]

Dear DGG:

First of all, allow me to thank you so much for all your patient advice and various modes of editing help for a Wikipedia novice such as I! I have a question, which is probably as addled as all my other dilemmas here have been. I am planning to spend the day working on my Wiki article, particularly the problematic partial or absent references. Do I edit it as it exists now in the public Wikipedia encyclopedia?

Thanks again,

Ahjazzer (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Ahjazzer, please be careful about adding back material that has been removed. As far aas I can tell, the only mterial really needed is references to reviews of his books. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


Cherokee Files entry[edit]

Dear DGG,

Thanks for taking so much time and energy ensuring the quality of Wikipedia.

I am writing on behalf of a student of mine who conducted some research on the Cherokee Files (formerly classified correspondence between the U.S. and the Republic of Korea during the critical 1979-1980 period). Together we determined that putting some basic information about these documents up on Wikipedia would be a useful service. Hence, his created page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cherokee_Files.

As we are both neophytes, could you please provide a little more detail as to precisely why the page was declined? The sources used are primarily the actual files themselves. Is there a reason why that is unacceptable? Would the entire entry be more acceptable if he were to rework (or remove entirely) the "Controversy" section?

I hope to be able to use creating Wikipedia pages as a potential student assignment in the future; therefore, the more clarity I can get on what is and is not acceptable will be most appreciated!

Cheers,

Kirk W. Larsen Associate Professor of History Brigham Young University

Kwlarsen (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for primary research, or for the publication of source documents, It's an encyclopedia , and everything here is supposed to be based on reliable 3rd party sources. The analysis of original sources is original research--see WP:OR for our official explanation of why this is inappropriate here. As you of course know, the interpretation of original documents requires training and expertise. We do not evaluate articles based on their academic quality, or judge whether an article summarizing primary sources is a fair summary, for we are a collection of amateurs, and unable to do so.. All that we do is ensure that they are sourced to reliable published 3rd party secondary sources, so the person who wants further information can consult them and evaluate them for themselves.
Now, in actual fact, some of us are indeed qualified experts. I've had an academic career in two fields, and although my knowledge of molecular biology is way out of date, my knowledge of publishing and librarianship is current, and I am prepared to make professional judgments in this area, just as I did before I retired from Princeton. But I do not make such judgments here, though I use my knowledge in judging whether sources are reliable.. There are several contributors here who have expertise similar to your in history at various academic institutions. Some of them say so on their user pages; some do not, but I am aware of it because I know them personally-- and some I do not actually know for sure, but can tell from the quality of their analysis. There are other in various fields of the humanities; and there are a considerable number with high qualifications in various fields of science and technology--a few are in fact the leading experts in their specialty. Again, some declare their qualifications; some do not. And they too do not publish their research here or that of their students, but use their knowledge to judge whether articles in their areas are in fact sourced from reliable publications.
There's a full discussion of this at Help:Wikipedia editing for researchers, scholars, and academics and especially WP:Expert editors
And there is a related project also sponsored by the WMF which is open to original research: Wikiversity -- See Wikiversity:Go unto Wikimedia, academics! for an introduction to the possibilities.
and there's a new development--what I consider a really exciting and important new development: Though WP is not a place to publish original research based upon primary sources, it has always been a place to publish reviews of published research. There is no intrinsic reason why a review of research cannot be suitable both for an academic journal, and for Wikipedia, though of course considerable modification of format will be necessary. This has been developed into a formal program: see WP:Wiki to journal publication. and [[WP::Journal to wiki publication]].
I hesitated a while before deciding what do do about this draft, because I recognize the importance of this material being easily accessible. I think personally that our rule about Original Research might not always be necessary, but I also am aware that if we did start making exceptions, we would have even greater conflicts on controversial topics than we do now. We can barely handle the disagreements on such topics, and I am therefore not willing to use here our available policy of WP:IAR, of being able to ignore all rules if necessary to improve the encyclopedia in any individual case. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


Book reviews[edit]

... the standard to avoid excessive weight is to place reviews of specific books in the section on the books, not the lead paragraph. Quoting from reviews is a method subject to abuse, because of cherry-picking. (And reviews even in peer-reviewed academic journals are not normally peer-reviewed. They're intended as a personal comment by an expert, not an addition to the scholarly literature. There are exceptions on rare occasions for particularly extensive evaluative reviews that are actually reviews of a field. But usually an academic journal controls the quality of views by allowing the book author to reply, and, if really necessary in rare cases, publishing a second review. The way to do it is to add the review as a footnote to the book, putting a one sentence excerpt as a quote within the footnote--see WP:CITE.

New Page Review newsletter December 2019[edit]

A graph showing the number of articles in the page curation feed from 12/21/18 - 12/20/19

Reviewer of the Year
New page reviewer of the year cup.svg

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


G11 declines[edit]

Hi DGG -- You and I clearly disagree about quite how promotional articles need to be for G11 to apply. Kaveh Alizadeh appears only very borderline notable and might benefit from a test at AfD. Younan Nowzaradan is, I think, probably notable if only as a television personality, but you could try redirecting to My 600-lb Life and see if you get reverted. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, G11 is somewhat subjective. This is why I do not delete them single handedly, nor think that any admin should., About 5% of my nominations will possibly be errors or overreach, which by itself would be too high an error rate to be acceptable or fair to the contributors. But with two people checking each other that becomes 0.25 % ,which is as good as can be expected. And certainly one person never sees all the opportunities for redirection or merge. I rely on people checking me, & I am glad that you do so. DGG ( talk ) 09:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Nexant Draft Review 2[edit]

Hi DGG, I'm not sure if you still remember, but thank you for taking the time to review and provide feedback for my draft a couple months back.

Per your feedback, I've rewritten things to be more readable, removed excessive sections, and added a few more sources as well. If you had the time, I would really appreciate if you could take another look to see if I went in the right direction and did it correctly this time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nexant

Regardless, I hope you're having a wonderful holiday season so far!

Kind regards, Jasper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.170.65 (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


Stanza Living[edit]

Hi DGG, Thanks for your review will update the page and ask for your further suggestions. Happy Holidays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digital1804 (talkcontribs) 06:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC) Hey DGG I am already working on new version and trying my best to improve the article based on your suggestion. I dont see a point how marking is as advert is going to affect it. I Request you remove the tag as i am already working on it along with few other articles. Digital1804 (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Check



DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[edit]

Thanks again. As for translations being copyrighted, if I understand you, someone's translation of the original work is subject to the copyright applied to that original work. I still thought that my reference to the article and own text explaining that the information came from that article was clear enough to define it was not my verbiage and credited the source. I recall quoting works (lengthy quotes at times) from original works in university and including the appropriate reference to that scholarly paper or book and it was acceptable. Have things changed since 2005? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett Rattle (talkcontribs) 22:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

our rules are different from a university. At a university, you can include the material because of the copyright provision of Fair Use , which permits many things, including using even long excerpts of that sort in an academic paper. At Wikipedia , we do not permit material which is only OK because of the Fair Use provisions, and insist on it being either public domain, or licensed according to WP:CC-BY, which permits anyone in the world to use it for any purpose.
the reason for this is that it was deciding back at the beginning in 2001 that we would make an encyclopedia free for everyone to us, where everything in it is free for anyone in the world to use for any purpose, even commercially. Most commercial use and and many other types of use to do fall under the US Fair Use provisions, and many countries in the world do not permit Fair Use at all, or permit it only with much greater restrictions than the extremely generous and permissive US law. Thus, for everyone to be able to use everything in the encyclopedia , we need to insist on a free copyright.
However, as short excepts of a line or two are probably reasonable fair use or its equivalent anywhere in almost any context, they're OK as an exception. Our rules are at WP:Fair use--but let me warn you that, like many Wikipedia rules, they are exceedingly complicated and not necessarily consistent. Frankly, it takes long experience here to learn beyond the basics , and the way to learn is to be guided by those who do know a little, and to ask questions, just as you are doing. (And if I have myself stated somethign wrong, someone more experienced with copyright will see this and tell me. We learn from each other.). DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


P.S. 1990[edit]

Microsoft was founded 1975. From 1990 to 2019 is 29 years. To not include companies founded after 1990 (unless ((de))drafted) would have meant omit Microsoft until 2004 (1975+29). No article about MS DOS until 2004, let alone Windows, XP, or even Windows 7? To have Wikipedia become known as too hard to find stuff there would simply cause the first stop to be something else; speedia, speediac and speedyak .com are already taken. This P.S. is not meant to disagree in principal, but rather to note that the goal will take more work. Pi314m (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

1. I didn't speedy because I wanted to call attention dramatically; I speedied because I thought and continue to think it is necessary to start over from scratch. I never meant to imply there should not be an article, but there's a long way to go for NPOV. I'm not going to discuss specific content here--see the article talk p. 2.I have never advocated not covering new companies or organizations, tho a few people have--some because they want to avoid POV conflicts, some to avoid promotionalism , some for the greater dignity of an encyclopedia. There's a great deal of promotionalism in articles about older organizations, and I've been working systematically on some fields, like law schools. The idea of focussing on the new organizations is to focus attention, not limit it. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


Neutrality Tag[edit]

Came across a page of an individual that had a neutrality tag slapped on it in October 2018. Says Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. There's a contentious talk page with a lot of discussion and at this point in time, I don't really know that much about him but I would like to work with you on improving the page. Would this be ok? MaskedSinger (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

MaskedSinger, first step is to tell me what page it is. DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
DGG Of course! here or privately? MaskedSinger (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
here. People here generally do not do work like this privately. All cooperation in WP ought to be public. And others may want to see what they think about it too. Nobody owns an article. Advice: in asking about something, always tell the person right away what it is. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Ok. No problem! Adam Milstein. I see now that it's a page you've had some history with. I don't know anything about the subject or the history of the page which I think in theory would make me a ideal candidate to clean it up. I only came across it via Israeli-American_Council. If this is too complicated can just leave it. But if you think it's something that can be done, I'd love to do it with your counsel. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


== Anthem Press ==

What's your opinion about the reliability (and reputation) of this press? WBGconverse 09:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

second level not very important important academic publisher, but a genuine academic publisher. Wha's the context? DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC) lk:HasteurBot|talk]]) 04:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020[edit]

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration


Undelete/Protect page Northern_Transmissions[edit]

I would like to create a page at Northern_Transmissions but I see that it was created a deleted multiple times in 2015. Please inform me as to how to proceed. Henry A-W (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

If you have references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements, start in in draft space, by making a page Draft:Northern Transmissions. When it is reviewed , if it is judged acceptable, an administrator will move it over the protection. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I've created Draft:Northern Transmissions which is ready for review. In the course of creating it I discovered the url is blacklisted. I was unsuccessful in having it removed [30] so I have created the page without any references to the url. Since this page is about a website I can understand that a page without any references to url may not meet certain standards. Please advise.--Henry A-W (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


you probably dont remember me from montreal wikimania[edit]

I have the opinion that TW is actually the highest standard content editor we have in the wonderful land of OZ.

But then as an endless tagger, I have a very personal view, it might not fit with others... JarrahTree 06:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Mohamed Trebak[edit]

Hi DGG. I was wondering if you had time to give me a quick notability opinion. Is this enough cites to meet NPROF1? Does it matter if the subject is the lead author on a paper or not? Thanks Levivich 16:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The number depends on field. He's in biomedicine, for which our effective standard is one , or better two, papers with over 100 citations each. The total number of citations doesn't matter, what matters is that whether he has done highly influential work, so it's the highest ones that show it. He would seem to clearly meet it , with 22 papers over 100, some in the 300s.
Now some details, not that it's really needed here, but as a guide to how to look at these:
But it has to be his work, not his advisors work in which he merely took part, or his student's work which he merely supervised, and that's much harder to tell. The key date is when he finished his PhD (uncertain, probably about 2003) and his postdoc(s) (2007) , taking account of a usual 1-year publication lag. . The principal author of a paper is either the first or last--there is no way to tell without looking at the academic positions of all the authors and their practices with citations and who received the principal grant under which the work was done. All of this has multiple exceptions: Sometimes a scientist's really important work is that done as a grad student or postdoc. The person is first or last position may be the most senior person, not the person whose actual idea it was or who did the bulk of the work. The person who received the main grant (which can only be seen by looking at the paper) is the head of the lab, but again may not be the person whose actual idea it was or who did the bulk of the work. All of this makes it quite a project. It is taken into account when promoting to tenure, or awarding prizes, but it really takes people who can actually judge the work--there's a limit to what can be done by bibliometrics alone.
There is a potential problem here. His most cited work was done while he was still a student or postdoc, and it seems he remained in the same general field for his later career. But this is a factor unnecessary to take into account for our purposes except if someone's borderline, and he has 9 papers with >100 references for 2010+.
Butt here's a real problem as far as we are concerned--the entire article is a direct copyvio from [31], which the article actually lists as the only reference!. (For bios, the person's website is the first place to check. ) I have tagged it for speedy deletion as copyvio. What really concerns me, is that this article comes from a regular contributor with 18,000 mainspace edits since 2017. This will need follow up. DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. The numbers rule-of-thumb is helpful and the explanation about bibliometrics even more so (NPROF is complicated!). I didn't even notice the copyvio issue; I was just focused on the GS cites. Thanks for looking into this. Levivich 20:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

draftifying][edit]

hough I'm not a new page reviewer, I imagine there are new page reviewers that move undersourced new articles to the Draft: namespace and then just use the CSD tag to delete the redirect. Is that the best way to handle that, for those without page move permissions? Doug Mehus T·C 01:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus: Yeah, if you want to draftify an article without page mover, that's how you do it. It's often perceived as more civil than nominating an article for deletion, so I don't do nominate unless I must.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 01:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I dream of horses, Thanks...yes, I always prefer to assume good faith unless it's absolutely patently clear (i.e., replacing the CEO with the name of an unrelated celebrity or something). Thanks for taking the time to clarify that for me! Doug Mehus T·C 01:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The best way to draftify is by using the script for the purpose, See the documentation at User:Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/Draftify It does the necessary moves and leaves a message, and , for an admin, it does the necessary deletion of the redirect. A non admin will still need to nominate the redirect page for speedy. I would use the G6 speedy tag, technical deletions, because a mainspace page should not redirect to a draft space page.
If the article is totally hopeless, there's no point adding it to draft space--the criterion is whether it seems possible to make it an acceptable article. For articles that are essentially advertising, I usually nominate for G11 instead of moving to draft, but if there's a reasonable possibility of removing the advertising, then it should go to draft. (we do remove hopelessly promotional drafts by G11, but the rules for this are more limiting than for articles). If a subject is clearly notable, and the advertising can be easily removed, tho, the best course is to remove it yourself. (If only borderline notable or it would take work to remove, then draft is the better choice. ) DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notices rom HasteurBot[edit]

HasteurBot, Oh, interesting. I should look into subscribing to this! I was going through the AfC drafts by date maintenance categories. (Or is that an equally common way?) And, yes, I realize I'm talking to a bot. DGG or talk page stalkers, feel free to reply (if you wish). Doug Mehus T·C 05:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The way the bot works, this is a list of those about to be deleted as G13 that I have previously commented on or edited. If you have drafts in those categories, I think you'll get these automatically. There are a number of complementary ways of looking at all drafts in danger of deletion: I use. It's supposed to be arranged with the ones about to get deleted at the front, but it doesn't always work out that way. I try to pull out academics, organizations, and historical buildings or events , all of which I know some AfC reviewers don't check carefully enough, and the authors often abandon.
An alternative method uses Wikipedia:Database reports/Stale drafts. It provides more information, but is limited to articles in the last day before deletion, and is not quick enough to catch most of them. DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

AfD of Robert Olson[edit]

Hi DGG. Since you recently reviewed Draft:Robert A. Olson and made comments about the subject's notability, and you've also been working on the Biografer cleanup, I thought you might want to know about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert A. Olson. BTW, I thought in the case of this particular article, it had been rephrased enough so that it wasn't a G12 of the NYTimes death notice cited in the article (like many other of these creations were), but you may have a different opinion on that. Cheers! Levivich<

AfD control of bulk nominations[edit]

Hi DGG. I see you often at AfD and know that you think a lot about it.

Over the last week, I have seen two "bulk-noms" of articles to AfD (which you have probably also seen); one being of Onel5969's US GEO stubs, and another being of Scope creep's WWII German BLPs. Both have resulted in each author leaving the project (at least for a period). While the noms were in good faith, they were "technical" articles where more than simple searches for GNG were needed (e.g. Onel5969's stubs had some confusion a reading of USGA listings as they applied to GEO, while Scope creep's BLPs needed sourcing from offline sources and de-WP). Such AfDs can accumulate easy Delete !votes, while the Keeps hunt for references and sources; and some Keeps will have a finite time capacity for the number of articles they can/will participate in.

My question is whether we should have some kind of rule that a single author can only have say 2-3 of their articles nominated at AfD at a given time – unless an admin explicitly gives consent for more, and such consent only being for egregious cases of PROMO/COI/UPE/SPAM etc. The logic being that a nom could not swamp/overwhelm a creator at AfD, and that it might prompt noms to get more buy-in/have more discussion with the author to other options (e.g. merging articles into other head articles/lists etc.). Also, the outcome of the first AfDs, will greatly inform all parties on the likely trajectory afterward.

I suggest this because the potential long-term loss of either of these two above established editors vastly exceeds any considerations about whether their nominated articles should stay or go in WP (they are not egregious violations by any means). We would not need to program this rule into AfD (although maybe later), but at least an article creator could "press the panic button" if they saw lots of their articles at AfD, and give them time to gather themselves, see if they can build support/consensus etc., and reflect on how the first AfDs progress.

Is that a mad idea? Britishfinance (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Britishfinance. apologies for the delayed response.
whether this is a good idea depends on the circumstances. Sometimes the articles are truly indistinguishable in nature, and can be nominated together in one AfD. Experience has shown this is correct only in special situations, because most groups claimed to be indistinguishable turn out not to be if anone looks carefully. --there is often notability for some of them or some special reason,
There is an an advantage from putting them together--people interested in one are likely to be interested in all, and there's a better chance of getting informed participation. The problem is notification: Very few people pay attention to every AfD. We have made a some advances gradually over the years of notifying active projects about AfDs in their area, but it for inactive projects and obscure topics it's a matter of chance. (It's true, though, that this can sometimes have the paradoxical effect of attracting people with by and large a common view, as contrasted to the general interests of active Wikipedians).
Doing them one at a time over a long period there is very likely to be low participation and inconsistent deletions.
My advice , and my practice, is to run trial nominations of two or three representative articles in order to test what the consensus is, or see if consensus is changing. Such nominations can in effect set guidelines, and are much more effective if there is a comprehensive argument including all likely people. After that, then it's easier to see what to do about the others. So rather than prohibiting grouped nominations, perhaps we need an RfC -like system for attracting attention to them.
Now, about these groups of deletions. The geography ones seem to have been decided in a reasonable way. The WorldWar II ones were mostly decided in a reasonable way also. Each article in both groups was discussed at length, and attracted a reasonable number of participants who were interested in the subject field and the notability questions involved.
I consider them good examples of doing it right,. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for that DGG, and I appreciate you taking the time to consider fully and respond. Makes sense to me now. Kind regards, Britishfinance (talk) 12:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

general notes on mass actions[edit]

More generally, there has been a trend to mass actions when a problem arises. This started with a decision 10 years ago to remove all unsourced BLPs. The non-zealots were able to get this carried out gradually and relatively few worth saving were lost. It has more recently happened with unedited Google translations done by the Translation tool, and here it affected so many fields that most of the high-priority articles were rescued. It happens about once a month with the discovery of a major sock-puppet, especially paid ones and those whose work has gone back many years. . Since there is complete consensus we do not want sockpuppets, few people try to rescue these. I sometimes do, especially because some of the non-paid people have also written decent articles.
Even more generally, WP is prone to moral panic When a problem we hadn't seen but should have seen arises, then based even on a single case, people take very drastic measures. This occurs in Real Life also--a crime by a single person once changed the course of a Presidential election. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

could you be so kind as to comment Re my request for help[edit]

here? If so, thank you so very much, Mr. DGG --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Advice on how to edit 'Ceramic art'[edit]

Hi DGG. Could you please advice about the following? A month ago I created a wiki page 'Lodi ceramics', which you approved. I would now like to edit the page 'Ceramic art', section 'History', subsection 'Europe'. I could add a sentence about Lodi ceramics in the Tin-glazed pottery sub-sub-section, but this sub-sub-section is so short that it would be much better to improve this section about tin-glazed pottery adding details about Italy and the 17th-18th century at least. However I don't have enough knowledge. Adding just a sentence about Lodi ceramics feels like adding a details to a background that is missing. Alternatively, I could add a section at the bottom of the History-Europe section, titled 'Pottery in Italy', and just add the wikilink to Lodi ceramics. Similar sections already exist for Germany, Austria and Russia. What do you advice? Thanks in advance --Arkie Hodge (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Arkie Hodge, do both. There's nothing wrong with a short section if it's in parallel with other sections. But in addition make links from the Lodi article. Within limits, the more cross-referencing the better,.

Try to provide for all the possibilities DGG ( talk ) 09:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Christopher J. Handagy[edit]

I inadvertently put this in December, 2019 and then I realized it is January, 2020=))

DGG Hello, Mr. Goodman! I got back from my Christmas vacation and took my time to add a few notable book reviews to Hadnagy's draft with new sources added. It has more than 30 citations now and the text has been through significant updates and re-wording, according to your advice. Do you think it should be pending on review list or maybe you can take an extra look and let me know if there are still any issues there? If you say, it is good to go (or not), it might be helpful for a new user like me. I would really appreciate your knowledge and expertise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Christopher_J._Hadnagy

Suchexams (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


Suchexams, you need at least to make the references a little fuller using the citeweb template to show where the reference comes from. Then the book reviews should be used as references for the books, using the quote=parameter of the cite template. I'll come around in a week and show you, if you haven't done it.

Also, take a careful look about wherethe reviews are comingf rom . some are more reliable than the others. DGG ( talk ) 06:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 16:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


Annette Carson[edit]

I have taken on board the comments made by you and others relating to this article, made appropriate changes, and moved to mainspace. Can you please review and remove the rejection notice.

Thank you. The Retiree (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I have commented further on your talkpage. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Tags on Pamela E. Harris[edit]

Hi! I saw you put some tags on the new article on Pamela E. Harris. I was just wondering if you could explain further. I thought that the several in-depth independent sources published over the span of 2 years ([32], [33], [34], [35]) would easily make her pass WP:GNG. I also don't see how this article could be described as WP:SENSATIONAL. Would be very grateful if you could provide and explanation and/or suggest what you would want to see improved to get the tags removed. Thanks! Achaea (talk) 10:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

  1. The first notice is one of our standard multi-purpose notices, which , like so many of our notices , unfortunately does not specifically describe the situation. The relevant part is that I consider it written in a promotional style, suitable more for a web page than an encyclopedia. For example, it omits listing her published work .
  2. The second is that I do not think she meets WP:PROF. She is not yet notable as a researcher. Most of her papers are uncited by other mathematical papers., except her own., or cited only for other reasons than the mathematics.It is possible to meet itWP:PROF as a teacher, but the awards are junior-level. But she apparently has received enough notice to meet the general notability standard, WP:GNG, which even for an academic is an alternative.

You will notice I did not nominate it for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


A kitten for you![edit]

Iris cat.jpg

Thank you so much for approving my article! I worked hard on it!

Florence Hansen (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)



Copyright question about linking to articles through Semantic Scholar[edit]

DGG, there is some disgreement on the understanding of whether PDFs can be pointed to via the open access tool Semantic Scholar through the WMFLabs OABOT, and I would value your thoughts on this. Can you see the discussion on the Reliable sources Noticeboard and offer your thoughts on this? It relates to a number of reverts to my edits where another editor stated that using those sources is a copyright violation. I want to avoid copyright violations at all costs on Wiki, but am getting conflicting interpretations of this. Thank you. --- FULBERT (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I've seen it. Copyright paranoia. My view of appropriate copyright policy is so far different from the self-righteous one prevalent here, that I usually avoid discussions on the subject. I just get frustrated. DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi DGG, thank you so much for your advice and guidance on rewriting this draft. I really appreciate your help. I rewrote the article based on your feedback and comments. I mostly tried to make it more neutral and “encyclopedic” and took out some content to shorten it and highlight the most important parts of his research. Would you mind taking a look at the revision to see if I made the correct changes? I am happy to go back and make further edits based on your feedback. Any advice is greatly appreciated! Thank you! Marissascavuzzo (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Eli Schechtman[edit]

Thank you for your help! Please, see my new version!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki82esh (talkcontribs) 22:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

this will take a few days. In the meantime, please double check for grammar, particularly tense. And I cannot quite identify just what prize the PM gave him. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Resubmission[edit]

Hi DGG, thank you for your previous suggestions about Draft:Magnum Research Limited. I have updated third-party sources and added more information (e.g. product lines, cooperations, and licensing) to the page. Could you please review the draft page again, or let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article?--Ria-TAN1995 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ria-TAN1995: I've reviewed your article and declined it again due to some possible issues. I've also added some tags to the submission. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Regards - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Resubmission of Draft:V-Nova[edit]

Hi DGG,

Many thanks for reviewing my first draft of this page. I hope I have understood the feedback correctly and addressed it in my resubmission. If anything remains unsatisfactory I would be very grateful if you can let me know what is specifically the problem. Similarly your input on ways to improve the page would be appreciated.

Thank you. IlanAstrug (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

new version[edit]

Thank you for your help! Please, see my new version "Draft:Eli Schechtman" Wiki82esh (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Sebby Frazer[edit]

Hi DGG.

How did you come to review Draft:Sebby Frazer. It was not submitted. Do you patrol new pages in draftspace? Is that usual?

This goes to the question of why do anything with things like this. If you did not MfD it, wouldn't it have been nominated for G13 in six months with zero page views? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Certainly I review new pages in Draft space—it is one of the options at Special:new pages. I look for several things. 1/material that must be removed or even oversighted 2/the very worst of the playing around 3/the most outrageous of the advertising, especially if they look like undeclared paid editors 4/reasonably acceptable pages from people who abandon them and that either can go in right away or at er a copy edit or two,

My view is that the sooner the better the top and bottom of the pages are dealt with the easier it will be later on for everyone. This is especially true for the attempted "contributors" whom we need to very strongly discourage—they should be dealt with right off.

Opinions vary about how drafts should be handled, just as with everything else here. We do not know what really works best, or even if there is one way that works best. We not only can tolerate a great deal of variation, we should have a great deal of variation and experimentation , as long as we don't confuse the beginners or make contradictory statements about policy. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

as long as we don't ... make contradictory statements about policy.
I have been wondering, am I being chided about making contradictory statements about policy? These statements were at WP:MFD, a place without much exposure to readers, or even to the average editor. I think the statements came from a disagreement of interpretations, and such disagreements should be aired at suitable forums, like that, and then it was immediately resumed at the linked discussion at WT:CSD (where, you were proved correct). If you think it desirable for me to strike old misstatements, please say so, and I will likely do so. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
[[User::SmokeyJoe|
SmokeyJoe]]-- sorry -- I nothing specific in mind here.
that was just meant as a general statement to pagewatchers. DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Eli Schechtman copyvio[edit]

I've rewritten a paragraph in Eli Schechtman that was copied from the YIVO Encyclopedia article on Schechtman: the paragraph beginning "Although Shekhtman received several Israeli literary prizes", added in this edit by an IP (who I suppose may or not the same person as the editor predominantly responsible for the draft). Do you think you could have a look through the article for any other passages that might have similar issues? There are some close-ish paraphrases I think, but I was hoping to just do a quick copyedit and don't really have the time to look into it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I had done a check against the print version, but I may have missed something., so I will check again. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
#########


Draft: Paul J. Tesar[edit]

Hi DGG, Thank you so much for taking the time to review and provide comments on my draft. I’m really sorry the article is lacking. I tried to be responsive to the first reviewer’s comments to substantiate notability, but perhaps the edits went too far in the other direction. I would really appreciate your expert advice in improving the page. Your comments are very helpful, and I will work on rewriting the article in a more encyclopedic format. Please let me know what else I can do to improve the article. Marissascavuzzo (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


Marissascavuzzo, first step is to answer my question---since the article is written tin the promotional style usually association with press releases, (for example, ...Tesar transitioned directly into an independent position back in his hometown... ; or talking about the many possible medical applications of the general field in which he works, ) you need to say if you have some conflict of interest, as we define it at WP:COI; in particular, if it should be the case that this involves payment of if you are in any way connected with his company or any firm working for it, you need to declare fully according to WP:PAID. And have you ever used any other username here? DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi DGG! Thank you so much for your feedback and comments on the draft. I’m studying at the university and in the lab. I know Paul well, but have no affiliation with his company or any firm working for it. I also have not used another username here. My username is my name and my intent was never to be deceptive or to promote his company. I’m new to Wikipedia and am still learning the process and standards. Everything that I wrote was pulled from websites and press releases. But your comments about the style, tone, and content of the draft were very helpful and informative. I can definitely see how the article needs to be rewritten in a more neutral and encyclopedic tone. Again, my intention was never to be deceptive or for promotion purposes. I’m excited to work on this draft and continue to improve it according to Wikipedia’s standards. How should I proceed from here? Thank you again for your feedback and help, I really appreciate it. Marissascavuzzo (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Marissa Scavuzzo


Marissascavuzzo, Promotionalism is extremely common in our world, and --unfortunately — in Wikipedia. (There are several hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove.) It is therefore quite possible for a good faith editor to write in such a style even without realizing it. ( I asked about the username because of some of the earlier editing on the article, whichwas clearly done by acounts that were not good faith editors) Now that you understand what needs to be fixed, fix it and resubmit. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


Hi DGG, thank you so much for your advice and guidance on rewriting this draft. I really appreciate your help. I rewrote the article based on your feedback and comments. I mostly tried to make it more neutral and “encyclopedic” and took out some content to shorten it and highlight the most important parts of his research. Would you mind taking a look at the revision to see if I made the correct changes? I am happy to go back and make further edits based on your feedback. Any advice is greatly appreciated! Marissascavuzzo (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Gurbaksh Chahal[edit]

Indeed. What I've read has been that the subject hired some editors to create a promo piece which stuck even though he is not really notable. Some experienced, well thought of editors made it a vehicle to showcase the subject's domestic abuse. And that doesn't look notable either. The subject keeps trying to hire UPE's and declared PAID's to whitewash/balance the article, and the regular editors vigorously oppose those efforts. They are quite insistent that the page remain as a showcase of the subject's domestic abuse. I think it's trash, but I guess we are going to keep it..-- Deepfriedokra 05:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

that sort of sequence has happened before; it also happens with consumer complaints. There's sometimes a certain satisfaction in getting the subject hoist with his own petard. DGG ( talk ) 07:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
C)

Request[edit]

Hi, DGG. I notice you declined the draft Manuel Muñiz on 16 January. I wonder if, as the man has been freshly appointed as Secretary of State (roughly a junior minister) in Spain, you may review the decision (per WP:POLOUTCOMES sub-cabinet officials are usually deemed notable), possible trim if they current content is deemed some kind of puffery notwithstanding. Cheers.--Asqueladd (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The first thing I did was move the paragraph and references about this to the top, so it will be quickly visible. Next step is a quick despam, which I can do unless you get there first, and then I'll accept DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I accepted it. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Martha Boneta[edit]

I submitted a draft written about this subject and it was declined for being advocacy. Please help me understand what specifically would need done to have this reviewed as a Wikipedia article. She is an advocate so I am not sure if that is why or if there is specific wording that is not allowed. I wrote the facts as stated in reliable sources but I obviously got something wrong and apologize for that. I am more than happy to work on the draft of you can give me some advice on what is needed. Thank you for the help. --Narksajax (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Narksajax, content like "Boneta says that her love of farming began when her grandmother came to live with Boneta and her family. Her grandmother grew a large vegetable garden in the backyard, and this inspired Boneta to one day own a family farm" is puffery. Try to write in a more impersonal way, and then I'll let someone else review it. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

regarding reviewing the page 'tel ganesan'[edit]

Hello, Thanks for moving the page 'Tel Ganesan' to Draftspace. I have been doing referencing with Wiki's autoreferencer to make citations from reliable sources. The references i have mentioned are from india's national medias. especially 1 & 2, India Today, News Today, Hindustan Times, The New India Express Etc. As the personality is an US-Indian there are numerous references are found in US based well known Newspaers, News websites like detroit free press , The Oakland press etc. The citations are made carefully after getting step by step reviews of editors which was undergon since past 3 weeks. So kindly reconsider the review going through the references posted and also guide me on any errors need to be rectified as i am a beginner.

Thank You, Jay --Jayreborn (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

All newspapers in all countries will sometimes run stories that are indistinguishable from promotion. The best newspapers are a little careful that the subject at least appears to justify it, and that what gets said has some resemblance to reality., but an interview is normally an opportunity for the founder or promotor to make a pitch for their product or service. Obtaining such articles and interviews is a primary job function of the higher class of press agents, and I sometimes think that what we measure here is not the notability of the subject but the skill and connections of the PR agent.
What I did was give you a chance to rescue the article; the alternative is that it would have been deleted, for a combination of promotionalism and not showing notability . Whether it becomes improved enough to be likely to pass AfD is up to you, and up to the possibilities of the sourcing for the subject., uSo, here's what to do:
First, you must declare whether or not you have a WWP:COI as we define it, for this, and for any other articles you may have written. In particular, if it should by any chance be a paid COI, see WP:PAID. Once you have told me this, we can go ahead and examine the references together. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Thanks for the reply. I have understood your points. I have gone through the informations and i can understand what could journals do for promotion etc. As you have mentioned i have nowhere connected with this subject or anyother topics i have written so far. Also i have not involved in any kind of promotionalism or paid editing in this article and any other articles i have written. I just created articles about missing personalities and i am just learning about notability & references on living persons. It will be great you can examine and help me on creating such articles on living persons or personalities with proper & credible references which was missing. Thank you ! Jayreborn (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, looking at the references, refs like 4, 7, and 21 are only incidentally about him; refs about the films are not directly about him, especially if they're from local newspapers--the role of "producer" can mean direct involvement, or just providing them oney; and I really have my doubts about whether the films themselves are notable. Refs 19,23, 24, are just listings. Anything from PR Newsrire or the link is PR, and not independent. Refs like 32 are press releases, as are many fo the others. The various honours in section 5 ar trivial--even E&Y 50 nationally is dubious for notability , and just for a US region all the more so, and for a nomination not an award, so trivial as to be better not included. Whether there will be enough of substance left to show notability is in my opinion doubtful. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review[edit]

Hi, thanks for reviewing the article. Since your review, I researched the subject more and found some more independent sources. I've included them as citations. I know that I've included some listings and links to the books the subject has co-authored with his wife, but I thought they would work as proof alongside the independent articles that have been published about him. Is that not right?

Also, you have asked me to remove the PR articles, but I tried to be careful about not including any press releases, self-written and published articles by the subject, or his own companies' websites. Can you please point out which ones you found to be PR? Perhaps I am not looking at them as I should, but it would be really helpful for this article and the ones I'll write in future.


Thank you so much. FelixtheNomad (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking again at it, FelixtheNomad, I do not really think there is enough in the way of substantial accomplishments that it will be possible to show notability . Refs 6, 12 & 13 are examples of PR; refs 21-27 are mere notices of awards, 28 is inclusion in an unreliable directory. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi DGG, thank you so much for this. This is a very specific response that will go a long way in understanding the kind of references and citations I should use. Now I can study the ones you've marked out once again to see what makes them 'unusable' for Wikipedia entries. However, there is one little question, if you would indulge me. In cases such as this one, is it better to create a 'stub' rather than a full article if the subject is not notable enough? FelixtheNomad (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

G11 on Richard B. Lanman[edit]

You're probably right, the article's pretty hopeless. GS suggests possible notability but with multi-authored medical papers it's always hard to tell on a quick review. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 06:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I could probably rewrite it to show notability , by focussing only of the parts that matter here. My decision key is
I. Unquestionably extremely notable, in the sense that WP must have an article: no matter how promotional the article is, rewrite it, even if it means WP:TNT
2. Clearly notable, in the sense that WP should have an article: if extremely promotional , remove it unless some established non-COI editor wants to rewrite; but if just a little promotional , fix.
3. notable , but only ordinarily notable in the sense that WP could have an article: if promotional, remove. If not, cleanup and accept.
4.Borderline notable, in the sense that it might be possible for WP to justify an article if we wanted to be extremely inclusive: if at all promotional, or the editor a UPE, reject. If perfectly OK , accept.
5. Not notable, reject.

The key also works in another direction:

A. Highly promotional : if extraordinarily notable, accept and fix or rewrite
B. Ordinarily promotional : if very notable, fix, if just sort of notable , reject.
C. Borderline promotional : If clearly notable, fix, If not, let the editor try to rewrite
D. Not promotional except incidentally: if more than borderline notable, accept. If borderline, consider. If not at all, reject.
This particular article is the common special case of a scientist moving into industry. This typically occurs when they happen to find something that is potentially capable of commercialization. If the article emphases the academic, I tend to be lenient. If it empahsises the commercial, and the commercial happens to be one of the rare cases where the commercial aspects are truly important, then I try to rewrite enough to keep it. In the usual case, like this, I tend to be stringent, just as much so as if there were no academic career .
This is at any rate my inclination, or what some people might call bias, about what is important, or at least ought to be important, in the world.
You and I and a number of others others here know how to truly evaluate in detail a publication record. As you say, it isn't easy. it's usually outside the range of what we can practically do here. But I wish it were possible to devote the time and energy to it, for it can be very interesting interesting exercise. It's one of the things faculty hope to teach graduate students. DGG ( talk ) 08:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC) .
Thanks for the considered response, DGG. I too evaluate articles according to the balance of notability vs promotion, but perhaps place more weight on notability than you do. I hate deleting material that's more than borderline notable, unless one would genuinely have to blank the entire article to write an acceptable version. I think we're both biased towards academic research over commercial applications. Unfortunately I am some combination of too busy/inexpert, and perhaps also too lazy, to attempt to fix all the articles that I decline to delete -- but perhaps that's what the wikiprocess is about? I hope so, but some days I fear it is failing.
I've found the discussions at RHaworth's arbitration case around what other admins consider deletable under G11 & A7 to provide considerable food for thought. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Please ignore this post[edit]

Goddamn! Your talk page is f'd. Anyways, had this conversation I thought you might enjoy. (I called you a "bigwig")

Peregrine Fisher, it was made clear by the community not so long ago that to add anything funny to The Signpost is a dangerous occupation. I don't see much very funny about the new Arbcom and its work either, they've had some hard cases to solve right at the beginning of their tenure, but it will be a bonanza for the next issue of the magazine. DGG is probably one of the few really nice 'bigwigs' left on Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 8:29 pm, Yesterday (UTC−8)

That made me laugh. I don't know what the joke is, but the punchline is "DGG is probably one of the few really nice 'bigwigs' left on Wikipedia." Crack me up! Peregrine Fisher (talk) 8:36 pm, Yesterday (UTC−8) Peregrine Fisher (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Prezzee[edit]

Hi, just wanted to follow up on this draft that you rejected two months ago. An article was published about a month ago briefly covering the subject's sales over the Christmas period. First, would this article satisfy your definition of a "true news story" as you previously stated here and second, would any of that info lend credibility to the size of the subject's operation or otherwise help towards satisfying WP:GNG in your opinion? Davykamanzitalkcontribsalter ego 11:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

It is a true news story, but it isn't substantially about the subject. It's about gift cards, and they're one of the people/firms who comment. If the firm is actually notable , there should be better. You're an experienced paid editor--did you realize the weakness in the refs but decided to give the job a try anyway? DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC) .
I recognised that the refs weren't the strongest, but felt there might still be enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, at least from the perspective of another editor. Davykamanzitalkcontribsalter ego 09:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Davykamanzi , The standard for acceptanceof a draft is whether the article would pass AfD. I try to go by what I think the consensus would be at AfD, but I know I am not infallible—and AfD can be a little unpredictable. . Therefore, if I've declined a draft, unless there's some special issue i want to follow up, I leave further reviews to another editor. As a suggestion, if you want to make the article stronger, you might want to look for some references for information about the financial success of the firm.

DGG ( talk ) 09:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Draft:New York Heritage[edit]

I see this subject noted in several articles and cited in several more. I'd be happy to have help on it or direction where to merge it if there is an appropriate target. Seems worth including. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this one is a problem. I'll try to find someone who can help. There's always a problem for sourcing with articles about confederations of organizations, so I tend to be very permissive with these. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Tommaso Geraci[edit]

Hi, I kindly ask you to check the voice on the Italian sculptor Tommaso Geraci. In my humble opinion, I think there are doubts about its relevance --5.171.190.189 (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Check the voice? Do you mean check the references? It shows he has had major public art accepted. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Pepper Group[edit]

Hi. Thank you for reviewing the draft. I rewrote and removed some parts that read like an advertisement or does not use a neutral point of view. I also added more independent, reliable and secondary references or sources. Please check if this is acceptable now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurdivon (talkcontribs) 00:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

still does not meet WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@DGG: Thank you for the comment. How about these 2 references?
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/business-spectator/news-story/pepper-surges-on-asx-debut/e9ae24e8fad970a39ef09a48c6eeae22
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pepper-group-m-a-kkr-idUSKBN1AQ00X
They have an overview, description, survey and analysis/commentary from the writer. Can these be considered as substantial coverage? Aurdivon (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Seven Nations (Bible)[edit]

Hi DGG. I just wrote up a WP:STUB, see Draft:Seven Nations (Bible) because I first tried looking this up on Seven Nations which turns out to be a disambiguation page. So I searched further on WP and found that there is information with citations about these so-called Seven Nations or Tribes to be found in Judaism and war#Wars of extinction in the Tanakh and Jewish responses. However @Jmertel23: decided to move it off to "draft oblivion" where there is a waiting time of SIX months!

This was totally unfair and in violation of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH because (a) it is just a stub, and stubs are given time, lots of time. (b) It's a topic based on BIBLE verses from the Book of Deuteronomy. (c) I subsequently added two Biblical sources from Deuteronomy Chapter 7 verses 2-3 and Chapter 20 verses 16-18. (d) I am currently editing from my mobile phone which is hard enough but that makes it very difficult to utilize Wikipedia's referencing tools. (e) As an exeperienced WP editor in good standing for over 17 years I am well-aware of WP policies and I certainly qualify as as a WP:EXPERT editor who knows what he is doing. Finally, (f) User:Jmertel should have contacted me on on my talk page instead of coming across as a boderline violater of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.

Thanks for hearing me out and for all your patience.

Please restore the Seven Nations (Bible) stub as soon as possible. I have asked some other editors to help out to improve the stub, hopefully they will. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

sure; it needs secondary sources also, but some can simply be copied over from the other article. can you find the actual reference in Maimonides given in ref 34 of the Judaism and Wars article, and add it there. If it means what I think it does, it's a clever redefinition of "extermination" to mean what we would now call Cultural assimilation. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@IZAK: Please see my response on my talk page (trying to keep the discussion in one place for clarity). Thanks! Jmertel23 (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 12[edit]


Deletion of Äkta Explorer[edit]

Dear DGG, I politely have to disagree with the judgement of being advertising due to the following reasons:

  • The machine has not been produced for many years and is even out of support (i.e. no spare parts are produced anymore)
  • The article does not endorse this device. In the opposite, it mentions its primary competing product line and mentions that the same task can be performed by essentially all chromatography systems and that the advantages only are in the specialization (some tasks are easier on this device than on general purpose chromatography systems)
  • Even though I am an end user of the device, I am in no way affiliated with GE Healthcare. On the opposite, I have problems with them as imho they do misuse their duopoly position to the disadvantage of academic research (which does not have as much financial resources as the pharmaceutical industry).

It is a big problem, that there is hardly any independent information about these devices available on the internet, even though they play a central and important role in the pharmaceutical industry: namely in the purification of Biopharmaceuticals/biologics, which is the fastest growing class of drugs (every second cancer drug is meanwhile a "biologic"). What specific additions would convince you to NOT classify the article as advertising? This question is not rhetoric as I would like to get your honest answer! Notwithstanding now the fact that it is very rudimentary, but that's why Wikipedia exist that the community (including me) can improve on it over the next days, weeks and months.

I started to use the machine when it was introduced to the market (in 1994) had am still using it occasionally today. I have been teaching university courses about its use in protein purification. But again, there is no information about these devices on the internet (except for the vendors own info). The vendor has tried to start some online "community" about five years back, but without success. The device (and also its newer incarnations) is used mostly in proprietary (secretive) environments such as the pharmaceutical industry; maybe that's why these efforts have never taken off.

Thank you for your contribution, but I will try to get this article accepted with all the necessary modifications to fulfill the spirit of Wikipedia. I am just a very occasional contributor to Wikipedia. While the culture of Wikipedia is well know to frequent contributors, it is very different to e.g. the culture that I am used to (i.e. the world of scientific publication).

Regards, Mjeltsch (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I first must apologize --I seem to have clicked the wrong button--I meant only to have it considered for deletion. I never actually delete for reasons of promotionalism single-handed, but either nominate and let another admin to check my judgment and delete, or look at the ones other people have nominated and then delete if appropriate. The intention is to avoid just such mistakes as this.
You are quite right--I judged too quickly--it looks a little the way a promotional article might look, but it isn't promotional, for the reasons you've given. (most articles on products submitted here are in fact intended as disguised advertisements, and it's all too easy to just look at the new articles as if everything that might possibly be promotional is in fact an advertisement. ) (I've restored it of course)
as it happens, I'm a molecular biologist myself & I've taught biochemistry and I can easily appreciate what the device does, though in my lab days 50 years ago things were considerably more primitive. I'm not sure though, you can really make a sustainable article for this particular brand of the device. I se our article on Fast protein liquid chromatography, which is written in a brand-neutral way, but mentions only Pharmacia . I think our readers would best be served by expanding the general article to cover in outline the two different lines of machines You could then make redirects from the different brand names. Since for specialized products like this the articles would necessarily have good deal of common material, and the differences between various brans and models can be explained briefly. I think it important to mention all the models, because in reading a scientific paper, people will come across the name in the methods section, and look under its name for some sort of explanation. If you need any help in organizing this, let me know .
I'm always glad to have a bad example of what happens when I work too fast or carelessly, because I can use it as a teaching example when trying to guide other reviewers. DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
The idea to move the stuff to the general FPLC article and have a forward sounds reasonable to me. I will proceed in that direction when I find the time (hopefully soon). Mjeltsch (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Please review Draft Northern_Transmissions[edit]

At your suggestion I've created Draft:Northern Transmissions which is ready for review. In the course of creating it I discovered the url is blacklisted. I was unsuccessful in having it removed [36] so I have created the page without any references to the url. Since this page is about a website I can understand that a page without any references to url may not meet certain standards. Please advise. Thank you. Henry A-W (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Henry A-W, I could add the link, butthere needs to be much more in the way of information and sources. If questions about the link are preventing you from adding more, addmore, & if it is sufficient, I'll add the link. I hope you can find more for it seems reasonable that we shoudl have an article. (You were also reminded a question about COI, btw, ) DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Ari Rastegar Draft Page[edit]

Hi DGG,

I've trimmed down more WP:PROMO content from the draft page. What else do you consider advertising on the draft? Texatexan (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

the first thing I need to ask you, is whether you have any WP:COI as we define it?
The main reason for my declining to accept the article was that it does not show notability . Almost all the references are things he wrote himself, or press releases, or interviews in which he says whatever he cares to--such interviews are not independent sources, such as e-ssuite and Forbes. The Forbes article, by the way, is not under their editorial supervision, but by a "contributor" . That's the way they indicate that they know it's PR. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Giora Ram[edit]

Just letting you know -- it looks like you intended to G4 delete Giora Ram, but accidentally deleted the deletion discussion instead. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

so I did, I restored it. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Giora Ram[edit]

Did you mean to delete and salt the AfD page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giora Ram (2nd nomination)? ... discospinster talk 23:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

oops. I'll fix it. DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Hi DGG, a great big THANKS for all the wikiwork you do (plus thought you might like some kittens Face-smile.svg) Coolabahapple (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Laia Cabrera[edit]

Thank you for your comment on Draft:Laia Cabrera : "There are serious problems with the article's non-encyclopedic style , and those are what need to be fixed". I am not an native english speaker (French) and although I have been creating the article thouroughly with references and creating a structure that is logical and solid, my formulations are not as precise as I wish they were, and would definitely benefit from a collaborator that would review the syntax. Let me know if there is a possibility there. Thank you! Yessa Deouve, February 10, 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yessadeouve (talkcontribs) 05:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

draft to Leopold Moll[edit]

Hello, thanks for your comments and support to Professor Leopold Moll, I will try add there the recommended things. Best --Vyrge (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

13 February 2020 Many thanks for your essential help with Professor Moll. There are more sources, I dont know if sufficiently well balanced and independent, for example obituary in the respected periodical Lancet from 1933 (it is even in English, and it is very very positive), summon of all Molls works (books, articles, lectures etc.) writen on typewriter in 1971 by his son Wilhelm, director of Medical University Library in Charlottensville, many photos (children clinic in Vienna, buildings, graves), records in on-line databases of WWII (wife Marie, brother Alois). I will also discuss again with my friends doctors and historians, how to improve the article. Kind regards --Vyrge (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


Draft rejection[edit]

Hi, you rejected my Underwood draft as a “combination of advertising and society gossip”. But, Underwood’s co-partner Sabine Römer has her own Wikipedia article with few sources and arguably she is less notable. Can you help me by telling me what I need to change to get my draft accepted? The only “gossip” (which is sourced) is the rumour she was dating a British singer. The rest of the article shows her participation on a television series, the brands she has founded and helps to run, etc. I don’t see how she is not notable when she has been the limelight (especially in Australia) for over a decade. Thanks.--Nature987765 (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabine Römer. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC) �
for the rcord, deletedat AFD DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Surasky[edit]

I have made major changes to Draft:Russell S Surasky: removed promotional tone and improved references. Can you please take another look at the draft and provide suggestions on how to make it ready for mainspace? Thanks a lot in advance! BhasSpeak (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thomas A Parham[edit]

Hi DGG,

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I'll move and respond to it here.

You wrote:

"promotionalism

"Are you realy sure you meant to restore the full to a bio article? DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)"

Actually, not exactly. But I felt it was the best way to respond to your two original edits. So let's discuss.

First, you tagged the entire article with an "advertisement" claim. Then you removed what you believed to be advertisements. But then you left the advertisement tag? I'm sure you understand that looks like trying to have it both ways. If you tag something you see as a problem, then fix the problem, why wouldn't you remove the tag? Or was that simply something you overlooked when you were done?

Second, I also respectfully disagree with you in some other areas as well; and I'm happy to explain those.

1) I honestly haven't ever seen an advertising tag on a BLP before. What "product" do you feel is being advertised? Of course, I would understand if [Tim Cook|Tim Cook's] bio talked too much about the release of the next iPhone. That's a product that's for sale. But that doesn't apply here. So I felt the tag was inappropriate. Of course, I've seen BLPs with the "resume" tag when they're just dry recitations. But that isn't the case here either. And severe edits shouldn't cause it either.

2) I know you'll agree that by definition, a BLP is a biography. So why remove either a relevant WP:RS biographical quote, or an RS quote explaining something noteworthy in the BLP? You also removed half the RS honors and awards in a way that seemed abitrary.

Also I see you've "subsequently" (see what I did there :) made 2 new edits and invited discussion. So let's discuss those.

In your first edit you removed a quote because you said it was: "unreliable sourced material removed from BLP-- based on hisword only." Are you saying the source was unreliable? Because the RS was a university website. If you're saying that he himself is unreliable because it was "his word only," I believe that's acceptable (WP:BLPSELFPUB) for a brief but relevant quote about his own upbringing. There are also separate RS in the paragraph right before it, (which you also wanted to remove). There are RS links to 2 of his siblings and they both confirmed his quote on the university website.

And in your last edit you removed what you called an advert.

I'm always happy to collaborate and compromise. So let's try:

1) I agree we remove the last quote you took out. It's 2 sentences, but if you feel strongly then fine. In return, I'd like to keep his quote. I think it's interesting and important. I'll include it's from an interview, so it's not like he's just waxing nostalgic.

2) I also agree the daughters ref can be trimmed. Just listing their names is fine. I've already done that.

3) I think the list of Honors should remain intact because it's consistent with other university president BLPs, which list either honors or publications a bit, but not both. Like here, here, here, or here.

That covers it, I think. If you have anything else, let me know. Otherwise, agreed? X4n6 (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


Speaking generally: my main field of interest here is academic biographies, and I'm concerned in making sure that the non-notable ones do not get included, that the notable ones show clearly the encyclopedic notability, and that encyclopedia articles don't look like promotionalism. As in other fields, probably most academic bios here are written by coi editors, sometimes the subjects themselves, occasionally enthusiastic students, but much more frequently university or department PR staff. As in other fields, promotionalism is so widespread both in the world and in Wikipedia that itis very easy for a person writing without coi in perfect good faith to write in a similarly promotional style. Promotional writing is what the subject would like readers to know about himself, in contrast to encyclopedic writing, which is what a general reader might want to know.
1) the "advertisement" tag is used for promotionalism in general. It's meant as a signal that editing is needed, not a condemnation. Articles containing promotional quotes are promotional, but fixable. Articles containing excess irrelevant personal material are promotional --they're what people or their employers like to say about themselves. What a reader cares about, is what the person's professional background is, and why the person's professional work is significant.
2) Of course we list awards and publications . We list major awards and the most important publications. Listing minor awards does not add to notability , but detracts from it, because it takes away attention from the important accomplishments. There are only 2 types of publications that list every award: CVs, where the current custom in academic CVs is to list everything possible, but WP is not a place for publishing CVs; and promotional write ups by PR staff which list everything they may think sounds impressive, but WP is an encyclopedia not a place for making people look important. Nobody outside themselves or their own university cares about local awards or minor publications. Nobody except those who know them care about their family's accomplishments--or, for that matter, their children's names.
3) A person's own statements when published by a responsible source are accepted for the routine plain facts about their life--the sort of thing that can in principle by cross-checked. hat they say about their motivations is what they want to have said, and is not always trustworthy, for they tend to exaggerate. to the extent sometimes of self-puffery.
4) Details are usually discussed on the article talk page, which is where I started this discussion. I'm not here to negotiate content, but to improve articles, and I improve them to the extent that is practical. Consider this as advice, and if we still disagree, we can continue there. and if necessary ask for other opinions. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
You addressed several areas, in general terms, which merit a response. So, in order to make this a colloquy and not a disquisition, I'll respond to those here and save specific concerns about the article for its talk page.
It seems you've fashioned yourself to be a kind of anti-promotionalism heat seeking missile seeking out the scourge that is promotionalism in academic entries. Hyperbolic as that sounds, it's not intended as criticism. There are several editors on this project who perform a very narrow set of functions and they perform them very well. In fact, it's a laudatory exercise if coi influence in academic articles is as pervasive a problem as you make it sound. For me, more often than not I encounter academic BLPs that are little more than stubs. Almost as though someone recognized the individual was notable, but wasn't interested in the time it took to do a deep dive. They just wanted the individual listed in the encyclopedia.
By contrast, I'm a long-term, but not particularly prolific editor, who endeavors for quality over quantity. I'd rather write 10 articles that are well-written, well-sourced, encyclopedic, yet interesting reads, than write 1000 that are boilerplate just to increase my new article count. Of course articles must be encyclopedic, but that doesn't require that they be dry. And a well-placed and appropriate quote accomplishes that. Just as a picture is worth a thousand words, so too can a good quote be far more informative than dry prose. Regarding self-quotes, obviously they can be problematic. But a brief, well-chosen self-quote can also be informative and encyclopedic.
Regarding awards and publications, you mentioned your primary interest is in the academic biographies. Mine are in universities, university administrators, entertainment personalities and other bios. In the entertainment field, persons with an enormous number of awards will have separate articles just for cataloguing those awards. I have not seen that with academic bios. Although I do recall an article with a very long list of honorary doctorates. I've also encountered lengthy bibliographies and long lists of academic awards. As I mentioned prior, I don't think these do much for the article either. The reader certainly won't read them all. It just makes the staffer or academic who wrote their own article feel they've demonstrated how accomplished they are. But there is a middle ground between too little and too much of the lists and that's where I try to work.
I've encountered editors who automatically approach every article with the general rule that 50% of every article can be removed. Reliably sourced or not. As though they're somehow saving "space." Yet I've never seen a Good Article that could be read in thirty seconds or four paragraphs. Trimming the fat always makes sense. Amputating a limb just to make the whole lighter makes no sense.
Your comment regarding not being here to negotiate but to improve, sounded like a rejection of collaboration and compromise in favor of an only you know best approach, that I found of some concern. Perhaps you didn't mean it to sound that way, or maybe you did. I suppose we'll cross that Rubicon when/if we come to it. But improving articles is why I'm here too. The work I've done should make that clear. I'm no one's PR. I'm just aiming for encyclopedic, informative and interesting articles for the reader. X4n6 (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Request on 01:58:00, 12 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by JMmelegrito[edit]


Hello, Thank you very much for reviewing my draft article and I certainly appreciate the opinion of an expert Wikieditor. Just for the record, I'm neither working nor connected to TAP DMV and its employees.

May I ask what are the things that should be changed on the draft article? If there is a need for citation on the information, particularly on each of the channels, I have DVR recordings to show as a proof.

Also, If my Wikipedia article has not been approved, then why is the TAP Sports article, which contains far less details and contains only one reference, has been approved?

Hoping to hear your response. Thanks!

JMmelegrito (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The question isn't existence, but whether there are references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. You may want to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TAP Sports. There are several hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

*******

Request on 06:17:06, 12 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Marilen.buenviaje[edit]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Antonio_H._Castro_Neto hi, can I get more tips on how to improve this article? it got declined by you :) thanks

Marilen.buenviaje (talk) 06:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I already said at the article what to do, so do it. Watch out for adjectives of excellence or praise--they do not belong in an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 09:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


thanks for your note[edit]

thanks for your comment just now at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Brianboulton/drafts#User:Brianboulton/drafts. I cannot understand what is going on there. I just posted a link to the page in question. I have now successfully provided fully labeled redirects pointing to each of the drafts left by this user. Also, I created a sub-directory for all such drafts, so that any editor at all can get a comprehensive list of the full set of drafts, merely by using this template.

furthermore, I made the sub-page as a sub-page for the page for all deceased Wikipedians; in other words, any other such drafts can be added to the same sub-directory, so it will be easier for such editing efforts to proceed, since we have one centralized location to view them.

can you please go back and respond to the editor there who just replied? he linked to a past version of that page, instead of the current version which I had already updated. please feel free to follow both links, and then to reply. you are welcome to reply or to contact me any time. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. ...my bad. Talking about this at Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians#Should we say something about etiquette in moving and page creation?.--Moxy 🍁 05:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I adjusted my comment accordingly Thanks for letting me know. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
actually, your initial comment was totally fine and totally accurate. I would suggest that you please reinstate it. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
OK, but at this point I'm really a little confused. I'll look at it tomorrow when I'm more alert. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

*******

Draft:Neeyamo[edit]

Dear DGG,

We got a notification from wikipedia that says deleted page Draft:Neeyamo (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion, noticed that the request to deletion was initiated by you. We look at having a company page without any promotions with respect to the wikipedia guidelines. Can you please help us get back the deleted article and also let us know if there is anything that any content that have to be removed for a green signal to conversion into a wiki page? Irenejones2009 Irenejones2009, who is us and we ? Only individuals must edit, so I assume you are a representative of the company. If so, you must make the appropriate declaration according to WP:COI and WP:PAID. After that, we can discuss it further. DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear DGG,

Read both COI & PAID and have declared accordingly. Can the wiki page go live? *******

Draft:Airoll(Vehicle)[edit]

Hi DDG,

Thank you for reviewing - Draft:Airoll (Vehicle). As per your comments some sections have been reworded as to avoid paraphrasing and an etymology section has been added to discuss the naming of the vehicle. Please let me know if any other changes are needed. *******

An OTRS inquiry[edit]

Wikimedia received a request to delete a draft article ticket:2019122210000089 the relevant draft is Draft:Joseph G. Sorokin.

At the time of the request, the draft had not been edited in just short of six months. I responded to them that it would likely be automatically deleted in a few days. However, you edited the article in the interim resetting the six-month clock.

While they were willing to accept a few days delay, my guess is they won't be happy to hear that it will take at least another six months.

Do you have any particular thoughts?

I suppose I can nominate for AFD but I wanted to check with you first.S Philbrick(Talk) 15:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Let me look. It will take a day or two. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello DGG,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Discussions and Resources
Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.


16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Edits Made - Following Up[edit]

Hey, DGG. I am following up on edits to the draft Granite_Telecommunications (see "Perplexed" above). We discussed the needed changes in December and I made the edits you requested at the time. Since the volume of interaction with you and the community is significant, I've quietly watching for updates. But now that we're coming up on a couple of months since the edits were made, I figure I should squeak, so I'm checking in to see if there's anything else I need to do. Also, I do plan to help with other business pages as you indicated is needed (especially since everyone's doing what I did -- make a page that looks like the other pages). In fact, I had been actively editing a range of content over the latter part of last year. But I held back since I wasn't looking for the things that you have pointed out to me here. I'll pick that back up when I see how this page nets out and I am confident that I'm not just replacing one bad edit with another... Thanks. Technutt (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

following up saturday or sunday, because you're doing good work and i want to clarify my comments in some detail, and discuss some related general issues. DGG ( talk ) 07:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC).

Sounds good. I'll check in after the weekend then. Thanks. Technutt (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

still working on it. I'm much more behind than usual. I may have to skip a few NYC editathons to catch up. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC).

Caught up myself -- I think we all are at this time... Crazy. If I should resubmit the page we are working on as a keep-alive, let me know. And I'll keep checking in. Ironically, and not for the best of reasons, it appears that I may have some extra time to help out some more here over this next bit. But aside from any of this stuff, I hope you and your loved ones are all doing well at this time. Stay safe. Technutt (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey, DGG -- following up here on the edits to the Granite_Telecommunications page and some observations you had on other pages so I don't swap one bad edit for another. Let me know how to proceed. Thanks. Technutt (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

*******

Eleiko[edit]

Hello DGG. Hope you are well. I noticed you put Eleiko up on AfC submission. What is the article missing and do you have any tips on how I can sort it out? Best, Kjell1918 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjell1918 (talkcontribs) 10:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

reply forthcoming DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

*******

Draft:Ron Silver (chef)[edit]

Hi, thank you very much for taking the time to review my draft. I read the reason that you rejected it (a lack of significant coverage) and included four more reputable citations that feature Silver as the main subject, not just a passing mention. I also condensed some of the language in his biography so that every fact is backed up directly by a reputable source. I would love to get your thoughts on what more could be done or if you think that this is sufficient - want to follow the rules and create a quality page! Draft:Ron Silver (chef) MiaF1213 (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

replying tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Review of article on Noma Copley[edit]

Thank you, DGG, for reviewing my entry on Noma Copley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Noma_Copley) and for your feedback. I've revised according to that feedback, removing all "peacock terms" and making the language more formal. I also added a few additional citations that underscore the notability of the subject. I resubmitted the entry for consideration. I hope that you will find that this revised version meets all the criteria for acceptance. I look forward to your response. Thanks.Gaw54 (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 07:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to pester you for a second review, but I am anxious to confirm whether or not I'm on the right track with this entry. I would very much appreciate it if you could take a few minutes to give my entry on Noma Copley another look. She has for too long been in the shadow of her former husband, William Copley, whose Wiki entry contributes, in my opinion, to her marginalization. I'm looking forward to being able to add a link to that Wiki page that enables readers to learn about his partner's role in activities for which he is being given sole credit. Thank you in advance. Gaw54 (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Gaw54, before I had the opportunity to get there , an excellent reviewer, Schwede66, has accepted it and is workin on it further. I may have a chance to do some additional removal of promotional wording. You could help by changing the mentions of her by her first name to her last, and replacing at least half of them by "she" , and decreasing the namedropping . DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The use of first names is to distinguish Noma from her (ex)husband Bill and are only used when they are both mentioned. I'll take a look for other places where "she" can be used. I'm not sure what you mean by dropping the namedropping. The context both in which and with whom she worked is important to her story, as are the names of the artists who were in her collection. That's what defines a notable collection. One question: can you explain why Carroll O'Conner is in red rather than linking to the Wiki page for him? Thanks again for taking time to review.Gaw54 (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC) *******

Hami Aksoy[edit]

Hi, how are you? why you move this article to draft? I think this person has notability in Wikipedia this person is the spokesperson to MFA in turkey all these sources talks weekly about him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmadqatari (talkcontribs) 11:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC) *******

Draft:The Roadex Project[edit]

Dear DGG. In my ignorance I appended a message for you in your Archive for September 2019 as that was the last time we corresponded. I have copied the text I inserted below. The only comment I would add to it is that I am having great difficulty in obtaining independent external evidence of the use of ROADEX technologies on public road networks as the average engineer and employing organisation involved do not normally publish such information. Engineers need to promote their work more in this regard and the ROADEX project is actively encouraging this. That said, any help/guidance you can give will be much appreciated. The text I appended in your September Archive was:

Dear DGG. Thanks again for your comments and letting me know about the help available on Teahouse. I made some changes to the ROADEX page in Sandbox following your comments and used it to replace the Draft in December. I am now picking up the page again to try to improve it further. Can I ask if you would be able to look over the current version and possibly give some advice on what is still needed? Editing Wikipedia is still a very new art to me! With best regards Ronmun (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Eonmun, Promotional writing tells the audience what the subject would like them to know. Encyclopedic writing tells the audience what they would reasonably want to know and expect to find in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedic writing is directed to the general public who might come across the subject and want to find some objective information.

What people would reasonably like to know, is what the project has actually accomplished, and, perhaps, what it is in the process of accomplishing or plans to accomplish, in specific terms. What nobody outside the project and its supporters care about
What nobody but PR people would ever write or anyone including them would want to read is jargon such as "widest possible context." or " have been designed to help learning in the workplace and in academic institutions. All four are available in the main partner languages to encourage dissemination and implementation." "continuing to carry out joint research in areas of common interest." or " state-of-the-art surveys "or "Its aim was to move the ROADEX collaboration further" or " the web-based e-learning suite of four e-learning lessons " Nor does anyone, particularly an encyclopedia, want puffery such as "Such has been the success of the PEHKO project, and the potential operational savings it offers, that it was awarded ..". Just say what they were awards--most people know without being explicitly told that awards go to things that are deemed successes. The guide to avoid promotional wording is to say what you mean in the terms you would use in telling a person what you do.
It does matter which countries and agencies support the project. It's worth stating once, but not both in a table and in text. It does not matter to anyone but the staff how often the committee meets, nor how many of the meeting are on Skype
say partners , not Partners; don't keep repeating "ROADEX", try "the project" (not "the Project") or, even better, "it"
And, even more important, almost all the references are from the project itself. We need 3rd party references. DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

DGG, Thank you for your suggestions. I accept them all. I needed the guidance and will take a fresh look at the draft page.Ronmun (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

DGG, Thank you for your note regarding conflict of interest. I have a statement at my User:Ronmun. Do I need to say more?Ronmun (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC) *******


Draft:Robert S. Gailey[edit]

Hi DGG,

Thank you for your feedback on my submission Robert S. Gailey, and for the edits you made on Jan 31st. I'm curious if you think I satisfied the Neutral Point of View with my edits on Jan 4th after your initial feedback. I cut out promotional terms and tried to focus on the publications and their impact.

Thank you for your time.

Soundingwell (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

soundingwell, what you now need to do is establish his notability as a scholar by checking in Google Scholar ofr th equivalent to see how much his peer-reviewed articles have bee cited. DGG ( talk ) 15:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply DGG. I did have a sentence on the number of citations in the "Career" section, but let me know if you think I should move it, perhaps to the intro, if you think it should be more of the focus of the article. I've also updated it to reference Google Scholar instead of Research Gate as that appears to have a more complete listing.

Thank you. Soundingwell (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC) *******

The Humanitarian Society[edit]

Hey DGG, thanks for reviewing Draft:The Humanitarian Society. I'm passionate about Italia