User talk:DGG/Archive 140 Sep. 2018

ARCHIVES

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

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

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

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

Monsanto problems again - please advise

Hi DGG

You might remember me from the big GMO ArbCom. I have very little time and even less know-how for dealing with the issue I bring to you today. I left a note on Jimmy's page here that explains roughly what happened the other night. In a nutshell, I think the editors ArbCom didn't ban are not impartial and have not been sticking true to science, nor have they been keeping the pages updated.

Monsanto/Bayer is fighting a slew of legal cases, the first of which they just lost last week. They are fighting claims that Roundup in particular causes cancer. The company is defending itself by being duplicitous, and trying to conflate the formulated product, known by them (according to internal email released during trial) to be more toxic than the main ingredient, Glyphosate, alone.

The editors who have been fighting to keep the Roundup page deleted are, perhaps inadvertently, helping the defense in what will be a multi-billion dollar set of cases. This is bigger than me, this is a huge issue for Wikipedia and I think the Arbs need to be involved right now in looking at this. I do think there should be some topic bans for those not following the science and NPOV, who are making ludicrous arguments that end up serving the corporation. I just saw one of our most beloved editors, Groupuscule, banned from editing this suite of articles *. So by this point, there is a monolithic group deciding how the articles should read, and I don't believe this group has NPOV as their priority. It still seems they are trying to defend Monsanto's interests. petrarchan47 คุ ก 19:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are possible notifying me because In the 2005 Arb case, I was of a minority opinion in the remedy on casting aspersions. Bu the arbs do not get involved in individual instances of COI unless there is confidential evidence. Given the continuing and increasing news coverage of Roundup, it should be easier to defend (or re-create) the page. In asking me to look at an issue, I prefer notto be guided to the action or opinion desired; when asked, I use my own judgment. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I won't guide you in any direction, and apologize for doing so. My thoughts are: "Roundup" was deleted without community discussion, and redirected to "Glyphosate", though they are not synonymous. I agree that the prominence of Roundup in RS has not diminished but has actually increased. Would you consider reinstating the page... or how does this work? (Please excuse my ignorance as to the workings of WP, reinstating a page is new to me.) petrarchan47 คุ ก 19:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made a comment or 2 -- things seem to be progressing reasonably. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't see that. It appears actually that an RfC determined Roundup should be split from the Glyphosate page (in other words, that the deletion of Roundup proper and redirect to Glyphosate was wrong and lacks community consensus). No one has restored the article since this RfC in 2013. I don't think there is any reason to have another discussion about it. Are you able to do this, or where do I go? Thanks again, petrarchan47 คุ ก 20:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A proper split of the material will be quite complicated. Ideally, it would need at least the following. a/ the main article needs to mention the major manufacturers and their brands. b/ Some of the material in the main article needs to mention the brand involved in the particular matter. c/ There needs to be a discussion of the popular perception and the political elements dealing with this particular formulation. d/ the material in the article on Monsanto legal cases needs to be cross-referenced. The restoration is possibly more likely to be accepted if I do it, but this is considerably more effort than I am able to devote to the subject. It would be more practical to take the version at [1], and remove material not specific to Roundup. But considering the history, I want first to try to understand what the point is of those who did not want a separate article. I would have expected those who think it uniquely harmful and the company to be evil would want a separate article, but so would those who think it unjustly maligned. I do not understand why anyone would want it hidden. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking to simply restore the last version of Roundup, like this. Then if changes are made, they will have to include community input this time. Since @Binksternet: launched the RfC in question, I've pinged him.

I might be topic-banned soon, KoA has taken me to AE. I do have responses to your other queries and comments, but not the time. I apologize. petrarchan47 คุ ก 02:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to ping... Yes, Petrarchan47 is correct that the Roundup article should exist by itself rather than as a redirect, per consensus obtained in October 2013 at Talk:Roundup (herbicide)#RfC: Un-merge from Glyphosate?. That consensus should be respected until a new one changes it. Petrarchan47, I hope you're not topic-banned. I saw back in 2013 that a bunch of unreasonably pro-Monsanto editing was taking place, and it still is today. You're frustrated by the mass of pro-Monsanto changes, which I can understand. Binksternet (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Binksternet:. It isn't just bias, it's the misuse of sources and misrepresenting or ignoring current science that has me concerned. They've been able to topic ban nearly everyone who brings up these or similar uncomfortable facts, most recently Groupuscule, on the basis that he might in the future, cause problems. I doubt I'll be around long with this type of precedent. petrarchan47 คุ ก 04:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaplan Test Prep draft page

Hello, I recently submitted a new article draft for Kaplan Test Prep, which was declined with the note: “Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Kaplan Inc. instead.”

I’d like to ask you to review this again based on the information provided below.

As you can see in the Graham Holdings Company template (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Graham), there are actually 9 existing Wikipedia articles under the Kaplan, Inc. section, all of which are about business units of Kaplan, Inc. A new Kaplan Test Prep article would be the 10th in this series, as Kaplan, Inc. is the parent company of Kaplan Test Prep.

(FYI, Graham Holdings Company is the parent company of Kaplan, Inc.)

This follows the widespread and generally accepted practice of separate Wikipedia articles posted for significant business units of large companies. Just a few examples include:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_Renewable_Energy, a division of General Electric

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_Lighting, another division of General Electric

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_Bottling_Shqip%C3%ABria, a subsidiary of Coca-Cola

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Digital_Audio_Disc_Corporation, a manufacturer of Sony discs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_Entertainment_Store, a closed chain of stores owned by Viacom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_Language_Tests, a unit of Pearson PLC group (another education company)

To make it clear for readers that Kaplan Test Prep and its parent company Kaplan, Inc. are not the same, I’ve added several sentences to the Kaplan Test Prep draft:

Kaplan Test Prep is a unit of global education company Kaplan, Inc., which also includes Kaplan Higher Education and Kaplan International.

In 1985, The Washington Post Company (now Graham Holdings Company) bought the company from Stanley Kaplan. In 1994, Jonathan Grayer was appointed CEO and led the expansion of Kaplan into other educational areas beyond test preparation, such as higher education and English language programs, forming the educational services corporation of Kaplan, Inc. in 2000.

Kaplan Test Prep today operates as the test prep arm of Kaplan Inc.

It would be great to get any feedback about how to improve the article further. Thank you! MT wKaplan (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I see you are working on several Kaplan articles, I'll try to give a comprehensive answer. For clarity anfd general visibility, I am going to place my response on the talk page of the main Kaplan Inc. article. (There's a sense in which the Graham Holdings articles might be seen as the main article, but the corporation is too diversified for that to be meaningful.)

But there is a preliminary matter,which I can best mention here. it is important to distinguish whether you are directly an employee of the company, or an independent contractor or employee of a PR firm working for the company; if it's the latter there are additioanl disclosures to be made--see WP:PAID. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

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

Administrator changes

None

Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz

Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Needs your eyes

Would you consider this result a copyvio? I'm also having a bit of an issue with the use of poor sources (one of which is authored by the game's creator), others that are dead links, 2 sections that are unsourced, and to top it off, my attempts to clean it up being reverted. I hesitated taking it to AfD since it was actually a redirect that was reverted (and why it came up in the NPP feed). I think the redirect is probably the best bet, but I'm not going to edit war over it. Thanks in advance. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, I don't think it's copyvio. The only significant parts found by Earwig are quotes by the WP article of the reviews , but they are in quotation marks and referenced properly. As for notability , this isn't one of the ares I work in. DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global Wireless Solutions

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

- 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: r 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Sperm Bank of California

Hi there, thank you for your civilized approach to the deletion discussion. In the Spanish version the articles were speedily deleted without discussion for being irrelevant and "promotional", and when I asked to restore them and discuss what is missing all I get is "the original decision was right", they don't present any argument and don't follow their own policy which has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as only criterion. I see your point that it could be sufficient to just mention the companies in an article about sperm banks. I however wonder what is missing for these companies to have their own article as compared to any other company or organisation. Few have such coverage over years in international media, which in my eyes should be the top criterion. Crotopaxi (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC) PS: Am I allowed to vote on an article that I started myself? Do I need to have a certain number of edits or something?[reply]

- Technically, our policy also is "significant coverage in reliable sources." This leaves an enormous range for discussion about what is considered "significant", and and what is considered "reliable." In our case, in the fields of companies, the interpretation for this has recently been very considerably tightened up by WP:NCORP. In other fields, the interpretation varies, and is some is altogether uncertain and the decisions in individual AfDs are inconsistent. I personally have repeatedly said that the variation in interpretation is so wide it makes the provision meaningless, and we ought to primarily rely on other measures of importance. Very few people agree with me, though I think a very considerable number--possibly most-- consciously or unconsciously do take this into account,.

Here, I think the problem is distinctiveness. It was met by the additional references, so I changed m opinion to Keep. Thanks for notifying me to revisit the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge

Mutual sniping seems to be continuing, from both sides. I have removed the irrelevant material form that talk page, and from here . If more is added, I shall block. The best way of avoiding it is to to reply directly to the other party. DGG ( talk ) 14:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did say this was never going to end, even after your warning. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pramod Kharel

Pramod Kharel is one of the most popular Nepalese singers in the current generation. Currently he is a judge at The Voice of Nepal. He is Notable. Please review protection for creation.[2]*[3]*[4]*[5] ~Binod~(talk) 08:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for a denial of request over RFPP.

And, now that I see User:Binod Basnet/Draft, how the heck does he have the auto-patrolled bit? I mean, which of the sources over there are reliable by an iota?! Pinging Swarm as the granting sysop.∯WBG^converse 15:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sockpuppet

Hi. Not sure how to proceed with this. But Grapefruit17 is an editor who almost solely contributes at AfD discussions. Seems to know their way around WP. Thoughts? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

find a possible candidate and I can check. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was the issue I had, I couldn't see a possible candidate, just found it strange that an editor with 120 edits had more than half of them on AfD. Thought admins might have a tool to check on something like that. Went through their history, and couldn't find any pattern. Thanks anyway. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bisnow article

Hello, could you please review the entry for author Mark Bisnow and let me know if it's good to publish, or if any further changes are needed? It has been edited per the feedback you provided. And to address some of the other comments, it is not an autobiography, nor paid, nor am I related to him. The mainstream news sources support notability. Thank you.

too muchabout Anderson. And the claims for his various innovations need a specific reference for each one of them, not just a general reference. DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Needs your eyes

Would you consider this result a copyvio? I'm also having a bit of an issue with the use of poor sources (one of which is authored by the game's creator), others that are dead links, 2 sections that are unsourced, and to top it off, my attempts to clean it up being reverted. I hesitated taking it to AfD since it was actually a redirect that was reverted (and why it came up in the NPP feed). I think the redirect is probably the best bet, but I'm not going to edit war over it. Thanks in advance. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, I don't think it's copyvio. The only significant parts found by Earwig are quotes by the WP article of the reviews , but they are in quotation marks and referenced properly. As for notability , this isn't one of the ares I work in. DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global Wireless Solutions

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

- 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: r 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Sperm Bank of California

Hi there, thank you for your civilized approach to the deletion discussion. In the Spanish version the articles were speedily deleted without discussion for being irrelevant and "promotional", and when I asked to restore them and discuss what is missing all I get is "the original decision was right", they don't present any argument and don't follow their own policy which has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as only criterion. I see your point that it could be sufficient to just mention the companies in an article about sperm banks. I however wonder what is missing for these companies to have their own article as compared to any other company or organisation. Few have such coverage over years in international media, which in my eyes should be the top criterion. Crotopaxi (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC) PS: Am I allowed to vote on an article that I started myself? Do I need to have a certain number of edits or something?[reply]

- Technically, our policy also is "significant coverage in reliable sources." This leaves an enormous range for discussion about what is considered "significant", and and what is considered "reliable." In our case, in the fields of companies, the interpretation for this has recently been very considerably tightened up by WP:NCORP. In other fields, the interpretation varies, and is some is altogether uncertain and the decisions in individual AfDs are inconsistent. I personally have repeatedly said that the variation in interpretation is so wide it makes the provision meaningless, and we ought to primarily rely on other measures of importance. Very few people agree with me, though I think a very considerable number--possibly most-- consciously or unconsciously do take this into account,.

Here, I think the problem is distinctiveness. It was met by the additional references, so I changed m opinion to Keep. Thanks for notifying me to revisit the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge

Mutual sniping seems to be continuing, from both sides. I have removed the irrelevant material form that talk page, and from here . If more is added, I shall block. The best way of avoiding it is to to reply directly to the other party. DGG ( talk ) 14:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did say this was never going to end, even after your warning. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pramod Kharel

Pramod Kharel is one of the most popular Nepalese singers in the current generation. Currently he is a judge at The Voice of Nepal. He is Notable. Please review protection for creation.[6]*[7]*[8]*[9] ~Binod~(talk) 08:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for a denial of request over RFPP.

And, now that I see User:Binod Basnet/Draft, how the heck does he have the auto-patrolled bit? I mean, which of the sources over there are reliable by an iota?! Pinging Swarm as the granting sysop.∯WBG^converse 15:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sockpuppet

Hi. Not sure how to proceed with this. But Grapefruit17 is an editor who almost solely contributes at AfD discussions. Seems to know their way around WP. Thoughts? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

find a possible candidate and I can check. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was the issue I had, I couldn't see a possible candidate, just found it strange that an editor with 120 edits had more than half of them on AfD. Thought admins might have a tool to check on something like that. Went through their history, and couldn't find any pattern. Thanks anyway. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bisnow article

Hello, could you please review the entry for author Mark Bisnow and let me know if it's good to publish, or if any further changes are needed? It has been edited per the feedback you provided. And to address some of the other comments, it is not an autobiography, nor paid, nor am I related to him. The mainstream news sources support notability. Thank you.

too muchabout Anderson. And the claims for his various innovations need a specific reference for each one of them, not just a general reference. DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bisnow article

Thank you for your guidance on the Mark Bisnow entry. I hope it's acceptable now. I went back to the drawing board and redid the entry. It was indeed a bit imbalanced so I removed the heavy focus on the Anderson campaign, as well as the parts that are unsupported with sources or are otherwise a bit superfluous. The entry also achieves a more neutral tone overall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-contrib-acct (talk • contribs) 10:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Technologies Research Speedy Deletion

Hello, DGG. It looks like you are a long time and active contributor to wikipedia, thanks for that. If you don't mind, it would help me to get some feedback on why you deleted the Disruptive Technologies Research AS page without allowing any discussion or opportunity to modify it. According to the site guidelines for Speedy Deletion, that would suggest you found the article 100% unable to be rewritten from a neutral point of view or the subject without any notability. However I (attempted to) composed the material to explain that they were notable within the internet of things field for their contributions to the state of the industry's technology and only relied on information as it was reported in something like 8 different 3rd-party sources, 6 of which are notable enough to have their own wikipedia entries:

My request for feedback is really to gauge whether there is any point in trying to reframe the content, or whether the sources themselves are somehow fundamentally inadequate to demonstrate notoriety. Thank you. Bredfiel1 (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted primarily because it resembles an advertisement, or a web page for the company's product. It is primarily a presentation of how good the product is, using vague phases of excellence or importance. It provides very little in the way of specifics sourced to reliable third party sources. The references are almost entirely the company';s own web pages, or press releases. The IEEE references is a general discussion of the state of technology, not specifically about this particular product. The awards are very minor--just placements on a list, and most are notto this company, but to its customers. You need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. You needto write in a style that does not resemble a web page. I suggest that, when you have real references--prefereable technical descriptions in reliable sources, you try to write an article on the product in draft space. It is not good practice. for a paid editor to write directly in main space. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I would prefer to update them that they should wait until they have more substantial coverage vs trying again if the source material is entirely deficient. If you don't mind, would you confirm that the below links are still not adequate for "substantial coverage from 3rd-party independent reliable sources"? I ask because of your comment that "the references are almost entirely the company's own or press releases," but I just checked and, of the 19 sources I cited, 9 were articles like the below. Only 2 were PR and 2 were from the company itself.

nursing bios

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[reply]

Undisclosed Paid editing

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)[reply]

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

Hello DGG, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

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.

Project news

The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.

As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.

There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Coordinator tasks for more info to see if you can help out.

Other

A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.

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.

List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget.
In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions.
MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues.
User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js^(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page)
User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js^(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50).
User:Primefac/revdel.js^(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you.
User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js^(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link.
User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion.
User:Evad37/rater.js^(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Two questions (related to GMO ArbCom)

Hi DGG,

Again, because you served as an Arb, I am hoping you can reflect on these two items with regard to policy.

The AE was reopened by @Drmies:.

I then received the following on my talk page:

Petrarchan47: I suggest you don't respond to the request. It's clear from policy that Drmies had no authority to reopen it. You should ask him to revert. If he won't, have his admin status removed. 173.239.230.41

Secondly, is this a example of canvassing, as @Veritycheck: says here? Thank you, petrarchan47 คุ ก 23:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

no individual arb can speak for the committee. To the extent that my personal opinion will be relevant to a possible committee action, I think it better to give an opinion in public only when there is a formal case or discussion. I think this is the way most arbs see things.

I do not like to take an expansive definition of canvassing. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record. This diff hits the bullseye and could hardly be called an expansive interpretation of canvassing. The explicit request to get other administrators involved is unambiguous. Moreover, the request comes at the end of a lengthy non-neutral appeal.

However, after Kingofaces43 having spelt out everything above to you and then following it with his request, "I’d be glad if you want to review the case to get more admins involved", I beg to differ. It is not in any shape or form a neutral request. Admin shopping is my interpretation. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You will notice, of course, that I gave this as my personal opinion, but , similarly, (1). I would almost never consider an on-wiki notice to a single individual to be canvassing. In fact, I consider that calling it canvassing might be seen as escalation. (2). Nor would I call a request to get more unspecified admins involved to be canvassing--it's quite the opposite.

Various people involved in this dispute have been trying to get me to express an opinion of which side is correct. If I have anything to say I will say it on the relevant talk pages or arb cases, and I think I've already said all that I'm going to. I am asking that no more comments about this dispute be placed on my talk page while I am on arb com. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Red bloc

Hi DGG, hope you're well. It's been a month since you deprodded Red bloc and I was wondering if you have any plans to continue working on it. My sense is that, though the phrase is used to refer to a few different topics, it isn't really notable in relation to any. As such I'm inclined to take it to AfD, but if it's still on your agenda to improve the article (I see your last edit summary mentioned "in progress") then I'd be happy to leave it for the time being. Cheers, – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arms & Hearts, I thought I had found enough, but since you mention it, I will give it a try. I will take me a month or two until I get to it. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Perche

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Perche. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ulo Altermann

Hi DGG, I just saw your article Ulo Altermann, and it seems to lack all evidence of notability. The sources are a forum and two passing mentions (in one he is named in a picture, shown as an example of a "forest brother", in the other he is named as a member of a group, but without further elaboration on him. The Estonian article is unsourced and offers no further clues. As far as I can see, in reliable sources he is only discussed in passing, and only that forum discussion spends some time on him, but that doesn't conferr notability. I guess you had a reason to select this article for creation, but as it stands it doesn't pass our guidelines on notability. Fram (talk) 09:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for better sources, I find one book which mentions him as a "for example", one book which mentions him in a footnote, and some apparently passing mentions in Estonian sources. Seems very thin... Fram (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to have been the leader of one of the longest-surving detachments of resisters, tho I need to verify that also. . I picked it a few months ago, & I've quite forgotten why specifically, tho there was a reason. . I was using it a/ to try out the translation interface, b/ because I have some interest in the period and c/it was quite straightforward. But I am now going to ask a specialist to have a look. I agree it may be marginal, or even sub-marginal but give me a few weeks.

Btw, my conclusion is that the interface seems of little help, but I need to recheck that I was using all the features. DGG ( talk ) 14:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, take your time. You never struck me as someone creating articles without regards for basic notability, so this caught my eye (while doing new page patrol) as somewhat unusual. I know understand why :-) Fram (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

September 26: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting

Wednesday September 26, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Babycastles gallery by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda.

This month will also feature on our agenda, upcoming editathons, the organization's Annual Meeting, and Chapter board elections - you can add yourself as a candidate.

We will include a look at the organization and planning for our chapter, and expanding volunteer roles for both regular Wikipedia editors and new participants.

We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming edit-a-thons, museum and library projects, education initiatives, and other outreach activities.

Wednesday September 26 WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com).

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles gallery, 145 West 14th Street

(note the new address, a couple of doors down from the former Babycastles location)

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Draft: Paul H. Irving

Hi DGG, I have added new sources to the talk page of this draft in order to better establish notability for Paul H. Irving. I have noted my NNPOV but hope you will consider the significant coverage in multiple published, secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If this is still not sufficient, please provide further guidance. Thank you in advance. OrliBelman (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Orli Belman[reply]

I've commented on the draft. 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)[reply]

Mark Bisnow article

Hello, there is a sentence in the Mark Bisnow entry that doesn't make sense because part of it was lopped off.

the sentence currently reads:

A second memoir by Bisnow, In the Shadow of the Dome, published in 1990, chronicled his experiences as a Capitol Hill aide in the 1970’s and 80’s to It was named by Washington Monthly as one of the top political books of the year.

It should be:

A second memoir by Bisnow, In the Shadow of the Dome, published in 1990, chronicled his experiences as a Capitol Hill aide in the 1970’s and 80’s to an eclectic mix of lawmakers including Senators Hubert Humphrey, John Heinz, and Bob Dole, among others. It was named by Washington Monthly as one of the top political books of the year.

The reason the book was well-received is because it talks about those political figures, so the sentence provides pertinent context. Could you please approve the edit?

I've removed the "to", I have not restored the rest, in the absence of evidence about how much of the book was devoted to these particular people, either from the book itself or from the review. I think a reader will assumes that Capital Hill aides will have anecdotes about well-known people. DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Foster Cherry Award

Hi DGG

I noticed you removed the prod template from the above-captioned article.

Is this because you think the topic is notable, or just think that further discussion is merited to ascertain whether it is?

Thanks

^Bongo_matic 00:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good guide to the notability of awards is whether all or most of the recipients are likely to be notable enough for articles in WP, tho it is of course not a formal criterion (I at first thought this was an award for Baylor faculty only, in which case I would not consider it notable , but looking more carefully, its a national award.) I have just now removed everyone but the 1st place winners, as usual. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Silvair, Inc article

Dear DGG,

Thanks for pointing out places for improvement of Silvair, Inc. article. I'll introduce the changes so that the article brings more value.

As for Afd withdrawal, it has been reversed by the bot: "No AfD template, but article is still at AfD. Bot adding template. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))". Is there a way to fix that?

MichalHobot (talk) 10:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see your user talk page. There are two reason. First, another used has given a delete opinion, so it can not be actually withdrawn; second, I feel I cannot fairly comment further until you give a disclosure of any COI. My advice is that if you can not find the necessary references within the next few days, you ask that the article be deleted until you can. DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've disclosed COI on my user page. Hope it's been done ok, I'm still learning. (I'm not paid or in any other way awarded for my article about Silvair, however I'm employee of its subsidiary in Europe.) As for "ask that the article be deleted until you can" - do you mean Speed Deletion or something else? I'll be travelling for next four days, so most probably I won't be able to do a research on better sources. The company has been several times awarded for contributions to Bluetooth standard, so there should be more info available. Still, because it would take some time to gather required information, I'd rather delete the article to avoid controversy. MichalHobot (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MichalHobot, it can be deleted at your request. Or, if you think you can improve it in the next few months, it can be moved to Draft space, though I have not sure routine notices of awards will be sufficient. --After you improve it, you can ask for review, or it is not worked on for 6 months it will be automatically deleted. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of journalists in New York City

Thank you for your good points, DGG. They are well taken. I've just started this article, I believe we should be able to take it there with time. Best, Castncoot (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on page in user space

So User:DNATESTER/sandbox was created by a person obviously connected to the company, six years ago (see Special:Contributions/DNATESTER). I was chasing down some spamlinks and came across.

It is not doing any harm as it is non mainspace, but it is just promo crap.

Your thoughts on if we should get rid of it, and if so, how? Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I blanked it. Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that promotionalism does harm even in user space, tho obviously not as much as in indexable material. The apparent reason for keeping this material was not to work on it, but to keep it in WP in some form.

I listed the original article for G11, and another admin deleted it. Had I seen this I would use G11 here, or its alternative, U5. (The difference is that U5 can also be used for totally inappropriate user content that is not specifically promotional) . I personally do not really see the point in just blanking it, but there's no consistent way of dealing with user sandboxes. They remain an anomaly DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious?

Hi DGG, you've probably got a more balanced view of a lot of things that I seem to have. Would you mind taking a look at the articles created by Michael Powerhouse. I came across a number of articles that I deemed promotional and on digging deeper, I came across other articles that appear to be heavily biased towards point-scoring as opposed to any real notability - e.g. Perry Weitz and John Simmons (attorney). Let me know what you think if you get a chance, thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had commented on his talk page earlier. See my comment there. I am now checking additional articles. The editing pattern does seem quite remarkable. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on the deletion of the Wikipedia page: Cloudcade

Hi DGG / Mr. Goodman,

I am reaching out to you as the moderator/editor that made the decision 29 October 2014 to delete the page “Cloudcade” (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cloudcade). Wikipedia recommends that I contact you before attempting to edit or recreate a deleted page, so here I am :). I hope this is the right place to make this petition and I'm happy to post this elsewhere if I am mistaken.

First, I would like to disclose that I am a Conflict of Interest > Connected Contributor in that I work for the company in question, Cloudcade Inc. You can view my LinkedIn profile at https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidtyleryork/ or reach me any time at tyler@cloudcade.com .

Reviewing your Articles for Deletion discussion, I understand your decision to delete this page in 2014. The company had only just raised money and had not yet released a noteworthy product. As user BusterD noted 26 October 2014, “With respect to User:Sergecross73's industry finding sources, they represent, at least IMHO, routine gaming business news. Lots of start-ups get seed money, and most of them don't pan out.” He’s right, and it was too early for us to submit for an article at that time.

What I would like to argue is that today, Cloudcade Inc. (https://cloudcade.com/) is now a company of noteworthy success and real world importance, and its inclusion in Wikipedia would be consistent with your mission to share accepted knowledge to benefit people who want to learn about the company.

Since its launch in 2015, Cloudcade’s flagship title Shop Heroes (https://cloudcade.com/games/shop-heroes/) has over 5 million downloads on iOS, Android, and Steam, and has grossed the company tens of millions of US Dollars in revenue. Shop Heroes has been featured by Apple and Google over a dozen times, including Apple’s 'Best New Games' Top 3 feature and Google’s #1 Global Feature on Google Play ‘Best New Game’. It also won the Canadian Video Game Association Award for “Best New Game of the Year” in 2015. Since then, Cloudcade has continued to support the game and develop new content, including a PvP Feature, Enchanting Feature, and frequent themed packages.

Additionally, Shop Heroes has expanded from its initial North American and European footprint to include Brazil, Turkey, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Macau, Hong Kong, China, and Southeast Asia. When we launched the game in China in late 2017, Shop Heroes reached the #1 Paid Game position on Apple’s App Store for China and the game’s success in China has its revenue rivaling that of game’s revenue in the rest of the world combined. Cloudcade has secured a partnership with publishing giant Kingsoft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsoft) to continue to expand Shop Heroes’ presence in China.

Building on our success with Shop Heroes, Cloudcade has launched the 'match-3' mobile game Gems Frontier (https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/gems-frontier/id1276988940?mt=8) and is preparing to launch the 'collectable card game' mobile game Card Brawl: Duel of Champions in early 2019 (https://cloudcade.com/news/2018/first-news/). The company has over 40 employees in San Francisco (https://cloudcade.com/team/), and has acquired a 40 person game studio in Pakistan to expand its production (https://venturebeat.com/2018/07/31/cloudcade-forms-game-studio-and-invests-in-pakistan-as-a-tech-hub/ + https://www.pocketgamer.biz/asia/news/69097/cloudcade-opens-pakistan-studio/).

Given the accomplishments and worldwide of success of Cloudcade and its games, we believe it is noteworthy enough to merit a Wikipedia page explaining the company. There is precedent for a number of other similar private mobile game companies having Wikipedia pages:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jam_City_(company)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spry_Fox 
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Blue_Bubble 
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercell_(video_game_company)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Com2uS
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabam

I would like to request your permission to submit a new article for Cloudcade, and am happy to follow your instructions on how to proceed.

Thank you, Tyler — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidtyleryork (talk • contribs) 23:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Davidtyleryork, My role in this was merely to close the discussion on the basis of what had been said. If I had had an individual opinion I would have joined the discussion instead. I think the best course would before you to rewrite this as a draft article in Draft space, and submit it; others will review it and move it to main space as an article if they think it would hold up. If it is moved, and someone disagrees, there will be a second AfD discussion. If whoever reviews it decides it would probably not hold up to an AfD, they will not move it, and you can continue improving it and submit it again for someone else to look at.

From the information you give me, I cannot predict until I see the article and the references. In any case, I'm not a specialist in computer games, though I often do work with articles on new companies. I can however give you some advice:

1) The first thing to decide is whether the article should be about the company or about its most noteworthy game. If the references are primarily about a particular game, then that might be the better choice. If you do decide to make the article about the company, you might do well to wait until another game has been similarly successful.

2) One factor to consider is that we now take a rather more restrictive position on companies than we did in 2014--the current rule is WP:NCORP, and the requirements that there be multiple references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements is interpreted quite strictly. At least officially, , we judge more by the quality of the references than the intrinsic worth of the company or the games, and the decision will be made on that basis. If the game is as important as you indicate, the quality references should be there. (any language will do, including Chinese, but give an English translation of key phrases)

3) Additionally, we now take much more seriously the requirement to avoid promotionalism.Anything that looks like it might be suitable for a company or game web page or press release will almost surely be deleted, no matter how important the subject.

4) Do not judge by existing articles, & I'd advise you not to make arguments on that basis. We've accepted a great many sub-par articles in the past that we would not accept today, and at least we can try not to add to them. At least some of the articles you mention are quite weak, and at least two I think would be quickly deleted.

5) Remember of course to declare your COI on the Draft talk page and your user page.

Good luck with it. Sometimes, I must admit, it is a matter of luck. DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:Death year and age

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Death year and age. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE and other AfD advice

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)[reply]

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 them. 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 mistakers. 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. Its 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)[reply]

as usual, a well reasoned and cogent response from DGG. Wikikit stalker - meowr! Coolabahapple (talk) 06:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [10][11][12][13]. (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)[reply]

Organization Article Question

Hi, DGG – I’m reaching out about the Direct Relief Wikipedia page. As an employee at Direct Relief with a clear conflict of interest, I’m hesitant to make any edits, nor would I know where to start. That said, I share your objective to have an unbiased, non-promotional and informative article about the organization. I was hoping that you might recommend how one might go about trying to resolve the issue you flagged – ensuring adherence to community guidelines that discourage employees from writing or editing articles on behalf of their employers (a good policy).

Any advice or help you’re able to offer is greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Tony https://www.linkedin.com/in/tonymorain/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony mit (talk • contribs) 01:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first step is to realize that it is very difficult to write in a NPOV manner about your own self or your organization. The official way to do it is by making suggestions, which you should make on the article talk page. . Add a line reading {{Requestedit}} . Unfortunately will usually take a while for a response--but if you also notify me here I will take a look. However, some of the elimination of excess can be done directly--it can be cleaer that way, just put a note explaining it on the article talk page.

The problem is advocacy. 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.

In practice, it is easier to show what I mean by doing it, so I will give a first pass tonight. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DGG - That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the quick reply and thoughtful explanation. Also, thanks for being up for making a first pass. I'll be sure to take notes and learn what I can based on your edits. Tony mit (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DGG - I saw your edits and tried to pick up where you left off. I didn't add any info but removed a couple sentences that I thought could be promotional. Also, I removed some information that didn't seem relevant, and edited punctuation in a few places. If you have any feedback or think any of the edits I made should be undone, please let me know, and thanks again.

Tony Tony mit (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All Things Broadway

I rewrote the article. Could you look at it? Is there anything else I can do? Vyeh (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Hi there,

I'm the subject of a new page that that has been deleted on the grounds that it's promotional, or that the subject doesn't qualify under the notability requirements.

Agreeing to someone creating a page, then watching them work has been frustrating to say the least. No doubt you will have spent many frustrating hours over the years identifying and deleting pages that don't serve the higher purpose or align to the goals of Wikipedia.

Intending to abide by those standards, I thought it best to let an expert do the editing (and I understand it's not appropriate for an individual to add a page about themselves). It appears the editor has mucked up the whole process and ended up with the page flagged to prevent its creation.

I'm the author of multiple books, and a regular speaker at international conferences and film festivals on the themes of futurism, media technology and creativity. It seemed suitable to offer an overview of the key messages I promote as part of an optimistic-realist approach to our future socio-economic and technological environment.

With countless online interviews, articles, and recorded conference presentations, I had the impression the page would meet the notability requirements and offer at least a little value to readers exploring these themes.

Unfortunately, the editor working on the page seems to have focused on links to books and courses - in short, it looked like marketing. The page in question is (was) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_Jago.

I'm not interested in self-promotion but do believe readers of my books and attendees of the conferences I have spoken at would be interested to find information about the work I'm doing in the realms of futurism, AI, social engineering, and the creative process. How can we find someone to edit a page of this kind that will meet the appropriate standards for quality and notability? I must admit I had presumed writing over 30 books and training courses, several used as standard textbooks in universities and colleges worldwide, along with over 1,800 online tutorials, would qualify but it seems the previous editor failed to include this information appropriately.

Thank you for your patience reaching the end of this lengthy post - it seemed better to enquire with someone with the experience and knowledge to offer helpful direction. If it's unhelpful to include information of this kind on a Wikipedia page, perhaps I simply need to understand the requirements better.

/Maxim Jago — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojaximus (talk • contribs) 14:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible altho not certain that an appropriate page could be written; the key element of notability here might be your textbook if you can find independent reliable published sources that it is the major book in its field. Amazon doesn't count for this purpose. . Lectures almost never count towards notability , and there seems to be no major award for your work on the films, tho I see the awards for 2 of the actors in one of your the short films, which might help somewhat. .

But there is a problem about this which I consider much more important to WP than whether or not you are notable enough to have a page. There are several editors who created versions of the deleted article. . I need to ask you about this, and I cannot do it here. You will need to email me from my user page. See the instructions here. DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bisnow article

Hello, I just noticed the entry about author Mark Bisnow is still tagged as autobiography. This is false because I am certainly not him and not related to him or paid. At this point, since the tag is disseminating false information about the person, I'd like to delete the entry. Could you please delete my entry? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-contrib-acct (talk • contribs) 21:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

t:he removal of the tag has now been done by another editor. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)I've removed the tag because the article seems relatively neutral now. You should still address the concerns at your talk page though. Mcewan (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All Things Broadway

Hi. I have to admit I'm bristling a little at your post at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Things Broadway at having a community member of your stature say my nomination should not be considered when deciding consensus because of admittedly substantial efforts to improve that have improved the article. I have read every last word posted on that page. As I explained after the first 2,000 words, I don't tend to reply to discussions where I've nominated because I've found when nominators engage in prolonged discussion with article creators that neither person in the discussion comes out looking good. However, I do monitor the discussions carefully. Is there a policy/guideline/well-respected essay that says after a rewrite that a nominator should confirm their nomination? I saw no reason to do so here because I considered the theater production element in my nomination statement, but, unlike what I'm doing here, I try to be concise. If there is such a piece of writing I'm sorry for bristling on your talk page. If there's not, I would ask to be asked to confirm next time rather than having my nomination (and time I've spent thinking about the article and researching it and following huge amounts of text at AfD) be imputed to not matter - I'd have been happy to reply. In that spirit would you consider replying to the question L235 posed to you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southwest Value Partners? I feel that the topic is likely notable but my research to date hasn't found other coverage that pushes it over the line for me. But maybe I'm underestimating/not properly considering one of the existing sources. Thanks and Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

as I see it, I was offering you the chance to say that you had taken it into account. Even more important, if I notify one person who has been involved in a discussion, I try to notify all of them. And , as I said, I have not myself decided whether or not I consider the topic notable even as rewritten.

as for the SWP article, I'll look at it again . I always like to be reminded or notified , as I cannot watch every discussion I engage it. I think everyone knows by now that I sometimes change my mind. Please always do notify me if there's something I might possibly want to check again. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: and @DGG: Thank you, both. I'll be more concise in the future. I'm planning an article about the t. Will these sources suffice for notability: [14] [15] [16] [17] I plan to write ATA as a theater company rather than as a venue or a BLP of James Jennings, founder of ATA. What are your thoughts? Thank you.Vyeh (talk) 06:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGG Wasn't planning on responding again to you but since I got pinged back here anyway, let me say (more succinctly) I would argue I didn't need to be offered that chance at risk of having my voice discounted. I would have been happy if asked rather than demanded (as I saw it) or offered (as you see it) to comment.

Vyeh Thanks for taking some lessons from that AfD. I think you'd have stood a better chance of persuading, and wouldn't have attracted so much attention, if you'd been more concise. As for ATA, Backstage might be helpful for notability but it's borderline for me (I question its independence given the heavy quoting and the plug for tickets at the end). I'm not familiar enough with Backstage's editorial process to say more about its RS status. The others don't strike me as all that great. But given what was said in those sources I think the organization likely is notable and sources are out there that would help establish it as such. One such source might be this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

High standards

I read your blurb on your user page.. really interesting. Jessica Pollock is a very active person, making a real difference. There has been a struggle earlier because people like you are all too willing to belittle people from their perspective. From my perspective I recently read about a very notable (male) person who was only notable because of the many awards he received. Nothing in there of why he was notable, nothing in there of any suggestion that the article is substandard.

The problem with deletionists, people who are on their high horse is that they are of an opinion and do not take it kindly when people do not agree with their set standards. This is one such instance and your reaction is agrressive; not only do you revert, you include "peocock". Why, it has nothing to do with me, I do not know Mrs Pollock personally. IMHO this is more about you than about the subject at hand. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably Jessica Polka, rather than Jessica Pollock. Edwardx (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 a 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 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 see it that way, even those feminists who support below-borderline articles. 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.

Normally I don't try to convince people who challenge me this way, but just others who might come here & read the discussion. But here, I want to get you too to think about the implications of what you have been saying. DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sock of banned user User:Vote (X) for Change

89.243.9.200 (TalkTalk), posting to timescale-related articles Greenwich Mean Time and Talk:Time synchronization in North America‎. Really I just want to know if this is really a sock, and so eligible for summary reverting. Vote X has been trying to circumvent his ban lately. MrDemeanour (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

he's in the UK and further checkuser is unlikely to help. we have to go by behavior--I see he's already blocked & reverted, which is fine with me. GMT is already semi protected, but perhaps it should be for a longer time. I don't think it's a good idea to semiprotect a talk p. unless it gets much worse. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]